71° and Overcast
Image
Me: Ben, for those who don't know you, who is Ben Finkelstein?
Ben: I’m a husband, father, high school English teacher, and community activist. I’m currently most focused on improving public health and environmental sustainability on a local level.
Me: I know you are a key player in the recent project to turn West Windsor partisan. How is that connected with public health issues?
Ben: West Windsor’s government has a recent history of pursuing an anti-environmental agenda for the explicit benefit of corporations. A number of projects - trucking centers like Bridge Point 8, gas stations, and warehouses - negatively impact our roads, our health, our environment, our schools and the overall profile of the place we call home.
How do we end up with such unsuitable and unpleasant projects?
It's because not enough people are engaged with our local elections. West Windsor had below average turnout for Mercer County, significantly lower than neighboring partisan towns like Princeton and Hamilton. We know why people stay at home; voters don’t have the information they need to feel confident. Since party affiliation isn’t clear, people don’t know where to start their research on local candidates and issues.
If we vote “YES” this November 5th, then voters will have access to this important ideological information. For the first time in years, voters will have an important starting place for decoding political rhetoric.
A “YES” vote would mean higher voter confidence, more turnout, and a population that is more collectively engaged in solving the issues we face.
Me: In full disclosure, I support this effort. However, to address what we are hearing from the opposition, please answer to the idea that if the town becomes partisan, that would mean single-party rule.
Ben: Sure. New Jersey has a history of voting for both sides. Chris Christie and Christine Todd Whitman, for example. Even deep-blue New York City voted for Republican Guilliani - twice! Plus, 40% of our town doesn’t affiliate with either the Dems or the GOP! NJ vacillates, which further lends to the need for more information on the ballot, not less.
Nonpartisan systems, like what we have now, tend to benefit incumbents and discourage challengers. We need some fresh, analytical voices to address the next generation’s challenges.
Me: What do you say to the voters who are unaffiliated with either the Democrats or Republicans?
Ben: All voters benefit from this change.
Unaffiliated voters might be dissatisfied with our two-party system. I get that. Many unaffiliated voters want to see people other than Ds or Rs in office. The change would give smaller parties, like the Libertarians or Greens, a real opportunity to gain momentum if they are identified on the ballot locally.
Nonpartisan elections are obsolete - all parties deserve the freedom to campaign and get on the ballot.
Democracies work best when all voters have all the information - a candidate’s basic ideology should be obvious to all voters. Basic principles about candidates shouldn’t be kept secret.
Me: You're saying that information about candidates’ political ideology needs to be available to voters. Makes sense, so why would anyone oppose?
Ben: The people who are telling you to vote “No” are the ones who are afraid of losing control. It tells you about how they view representative democracy. Their power is more important than we, the people, knowing what’s up.
Me: Have you heard the claim that if we vote to become partisan, we will be ruled by party bosses?
Ben: HA! Classic misinformation.
How do you think West Windsor candidates are chosen now? With our current "nonpartisan" system, there is a secretive process and it is way less inclusive than a primary process. Primaries are the most public and fair way for voters to pick candidates who want party affiliation as well as those who remain independent.
If folks don’t want Democrats or Republicans, that is fine. Independent candidates run in partisan elections. In New Jersey, voters can even register with a party on the day of the primary and switch back to unaffiliated the next day if they wish. No one is excluded.
Me: Ben, as an activist, what are some other things you are working on currently?
Ben: I’m concerned about where people get their information. It seems like with limited newspaper circulation, and the toxic “marketplace of ideas” that is social media, people are tuning out. This makes it so much easier for self-interested personalities to mislead people.
That is why I am so grateful to The Voice. It's also why I am trying my hand at Youtube videos, which I hope serves as a gateway for people to start thinking about local issues.
Me: Thanks so much for your activism and for your time today, Ben.
Ben: Anytime. I encourage folks to visit our website and facebook page.
Replies
Tom T
Neighbor
9-01-2024 11:22am
Partisan municipalities can experience more voter turnout on average than do non-partisan municipalities, but it's not clear whether this translates to a good thing.
Let's consider why turnout is affected.
1) Non-partisan municipalities often vote in Spring, whereas national elections are in November. The event of national elections constantly dominates the news, and thus, partisan municipal voters are more aware of the election season/event. That could increase voter turnout.
2) With nonpartisan municipalities, the lack of a party identification on candidates might require that the voter spend more time to understand the platforms of the candidates. This could discourage some voters and thus decrease voter turnout. I believe this is one of Finkelstein's main points. But to me, it could mean that the party bosses do much of the thinking for the voter, causing less contemplation and research by the voter, resulting in a less informed voter. And the bottom line also depends on how honestly the party sticks to its promises. I suppose if the party bosses of one party truly put societal concern above party concern, that's good for us, but by the same token, party bosses who don't have such values also benefit from the party system.
3) Party politics provides a much larger conduit for money in politics. That's because without parties, individual candidates must seek donations on an individual level, without the resources of a party. We know that parties spend money on advertising their candidates. This raises more awareness of the fact of elections, creating more turnout. But again, it's not necessarily a good thing because the party that spends more money often wins, which is well demonstrated in national politics. That might even be good if the "better" party spends more money, but what guarantee is there? Does Finkelstein feel more comfortable with a larger money conduit in our local political system?
Also on this point, with the national party system, which is now a duopoly, we are severely limited on our choice of viable candidates, and I think very few of us are happy with it. Finkelstein argues that primary elections are more democratic. How can they be when we see that it's really those national party bosses who are making most our choices?
4) With a partisan municipality, the national party system influences local politics. Finkelstein demonstrates this fact by his assertion that a party system is more "transparent." He is saying that local voters can look to the national arena for the political positions of the parties. The danger is that the tremendous bickering and polarization we see in the national duopoly will infect our local elections. Yes, this could increase voter turnout, but again, is it good? Who are those extra voters, why are they voting, and what are they voting for?
We thus need ask ourselves, does a higher voter turnout benefit us if that turnout increase is a reflection of knee-jerk thinking and cookie-cutter concepts that may not fit our local issues very well? Would more contemplative thinking by fewer voters be preferable?
In truth, I don't know the answer here, but I'm not well impressed by the case Finkelstein makes so far.
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive
Ben Finkelstein
Neighbor
9-03-2024 4:12pm
Thank you for your response Tom T.
To your points:
1. Seems we agree on this statement of fact.
2. I’m not sure what you mean about a “party boss.”
Nobody speaks for me. I’ve got a voice and use it to defend the environment and try to improve my community.
Voters are also not beholden to a party boss, I’m not sure why you think they are.
In the best case scenario parties offer an ideological backbone, institutional support to help everyday people like me run for office, and serve as a meritocracy. In West Windsor our partisan “party bosses” exist in the sense that Dan Weiss was the President of the West Windsor Democrats and Andrea Mandel is the current West Windsor Republican President.
3. In short, people have the freedom to donate to political campaigns. Nobody likes the idea of money without clarity. Campaign finance reporting is supposed to clarify where money comes from; the problem is Political Action Committees where individuals can make unlimited donations and effectively obfuscate where the money comes from.
Why are PACs problematic? Because just like nonpartisan elections information is intentionally kept secret. Yes, you can look and find it, but most people don’t go that far.
To me civic engagement is a bigger issue when it comes to municipal elections. Low information voters don’t turn out. Just look at the last few election cycles here in town. In 2015 24% of registered voters turned out and in 2019 26% voted. In a year supercharged by the biggest warehouse application in NJ in our backyard less than 27% of people voted!
4. Yes, higher turnout is a good thing. We want people attending municipal meetings and making sure we don’t get sold out like we did with Bridge Point 8.
Nobody loves the limitations of the two-party system, but less engagement will never change that. Third party candidates will never have a chance to gain momentum locally if they are effectively banned from campaigning as a member of their respective party.
Partisan elections increase transparency, accountability, and engagement. Primaries are much fairer than what we have now, which is in fact a form of a “party boss” backroom deal system you say you are against. Sure, partisan elections may not be pretty, but if you try to tell me that our current elections aren’t toxic, congratulations, because you are off facebook!
Final point - do politicians have an ideology? Do voters deserve to know the backbone of that ideology? Do labels give people a place to start their research? Yes, yes, and YES!
Tom T
Neighbor
9-05-2024 11:47am
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your response. I'm not sure how far we can go here using fact-based reason and logic. This isn't a simple subject; we don't have the data, and I don't think either of us can alter our basic beliefs on the issue without the facts.
I'm puzzled. You keep repeating that partisan elections increase transparency, without evidence. Yet you freely explain to us who you are and what you stand for. Are you transparent? Is your transparency hindered by a nonpartisan system? Where are you restricted without the partisan system? Why can't candidates simply tell the voters what national party they identify with? I find your last paragraph pure rhetoric.
You also repeat your claim that an increased voter turnout due to partisanship is important. Yet you don't give numbers. How much more turnout are you talking about? One percent out of 25? Whatever it is, how do we weigh it with the disadvantages of a partisan system that you acknowledge? I think you'd agree, we don't know all we need to know here.
I'm surprised you don't understand what party bosses are. It's not a singular term. I use it to describe a number of people who govern the main decisions that political parties make, according to vested interests. We just saw it with Biden, to whom the bosses gave an offer he couldn't refuse and installed the candidate Harris without a primary. Very clever, huh? You praise primaries, and so, didn't that disappoint you? I see this as the ability of the bosses to manipulate the party however they want, and they can even eliminate a primary. How democratic was that?
We also saw such political power demonstrated in the 2020 election, when many of us had hopes for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, and others who all demonstrated varied and interesting perspectives off the main party platform. But then Biden, the profound party puppet (PPP), jumped in late, and blew all other candidates out of the water. How? It's called "Party Politics." Pretty amazing, huh, how they could do that? And is Biden an example of your desirable "meritocracy" provided by party politics?
It also happened to Ralph Nader in 2004, when his people were even denied entrance to the Democratic National Convention building. How could we have a decent choice when the parties filter out the candidates in obeisance to the highest bidder? Or do you doubt that money is involved? According to Nader, "The money of vested interest nullifies genuine choice and trust."
And it's not only a recent problem, according to Woodrow Wilson, “The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.” He made this statement in, “The New Freedom,” 1913, in which he emphasized the need to combat the influence of special interests and political bosses.
It's good that you point out the reprehensible damage to our community with some recent decisions by our Council, Mayor, and Planning Board, especially on Bridge Point 8. In fact, I voted for you, Fox, and Weiss with that in mind. But you only state your beliefs and haven't given us much rational argument why a partisan system at the community level would help eliminate the election of such ill-functioning people. I think the onus to come up with relevant data and rational argument is on you, a proponent of the proposed change.
In my view, the most important ingredient in a healthy democracy is an alert, involved citizenry wherein voters vote for the person - not the party - that they believe is best for the community. That means not voting by party and not voting to "keep the other guy out." The latter is to play the same kind of politics done in Congress, where deals are made, regardless of what's best for the country. Such "sausage making" among the vast majority of US voters is the reason for our disgusting Duopoly.
