OneSkirt wrote:
All of these "drop outs" are all well and good. But their names will still be on the ballots. So people can still vote for them. Its still important we get out to vote for the people who are still in this and still want the jobs so they don't go to these Healy people by default, ya know?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

H-Parker wrote:
Does state law require that there be runoffs for council seats? It seems like a waste of time, money and voters' patience.

I agree. It seems a waste when the winners already won fair and square.

You might not feel that way if you backed a loser who got 2nd place with 12% in a field of 15 candidates. That person might stand a great chance of winning the runoff. Look up how Schundler won a special "no runoff" election with 17 percent of the vote in field of 19 candidates. This is why instant runoff makes so much sense.

stc4blues wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
...
But don't all the candidates have to run again or is it just the top two?

Just the top two.

OneSkirt wrote:
Why can't the June 4 & the June 11th elections be merged into one day? Besides committee seats, what else is up for election on June 4th? It makes zero sense. My neighbors - my large building had a huge turnout - are tired as heck of elections & the material/canvassing and general pestering that goes with it.

JCCheerleader wrote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
...
But don't all the candidates have to run again or is it just the top two?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

H-Parker wrote:
Does state law require that there be runoffs for council seats? It seems like a waste of time, money and voters' patience.

I agree. It seems a waste when the winners already won fair and square.

You might not feel that way if you backed a loser who got 2nd place with 12% in a field of 15 candidates. That person might stand a great chance of winning the runoff. Look up how Schundler won a special "no runoff" election with 17 percent of the vote in field of 19 candidates. This is why instant runoff makes so much sense.

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

H-Parker wrote:
Does state law require that there be runoffs for council seats? It seems like a waste of time, money and voters' patience.

I agree. It seems a waste when the winners already won fair and square.

H-Parker wrote:
Does state law require that there be runoffs for council seats? It seems like a waste of time, money and voters' patience.

T-Bird wrote:
Agree entirely with the idea of instant runoffs. Also - seems excessive to have a May 14 Municipal Election, a June 4 primary and a June 11 runoff. Getting people to show up for the runoff will be akin to trying to give away free dental surgery.

T-Bird wrote:
Agree entirely with the idea of instant runoffs. Also - seems excessive to have a May 14 Municipal Election, a June 4 primary and a June 11 runoff. Getting people to show up for the runoff will be akin to trying to give away free dental surgery.

CatDog wrote:
Ah here we go "Instant runoff voting" and Australia, India, Ireland, and some cities in the US all use it in some form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

FINAL NUMBERS FINALLY IN: Can someone recalculate based the numbers below based on 100% reporting

jerseymom wrote:
Still trying to understand the at-large run off election requirement. Is the threshold (explained below, but not clearly) determined by the original election, or the June 11 election voter count? Can someone please translate?

From NJ.com

...

Fulop's at-large team -- RLavarro, Daniel Rivera and the Rev. Joyce Watterman -- were the highest vote-getters in that race last night, but they didn't cross a statutory threshold to avoid a runoff. They will now face Healy's team: Richardson, Councilman at large Peter Brennan and former mayoral aide Omar Perez.

The rules for an at-large runoff are a little more complicated than those for the ward races. In order to win outright, one at-large candidate has to get votes from more than 50 percent of the voters who cast a ballot in the at-large race. If at least one candidate achieves that threshold, the next two highest vote-getters win, too, no matter whose mayoral slate they are on and no matter how small their vote totals are.

Watterman was the highest vote-getter last night, with initial estimates putting her haul at 14,756. She would have had to get at least 15,834 votes to win (that's half of the total number of voters who voted in the at-large race, plus one) and bring the next two highest vote-getters into office with her, City Clerk Robert Byrne said last night.

The rules are so confusing, Richardson last night conceded defeat to The Jersey Journal before Byrne notified her and Brennan that they hadn't lost.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... lection.html#incart_river

bjay wrote:
errence, do you know the answer as to whether we have the type of counters described below? It's still not at all clear to me that the runoff is legally necessary for the at-large candidates.

bjay wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
The voting machines now count how many people vote for at-large candidates.

T-Bird, are you sure that there's a counter to see how many people placed at least one vote for an at-large candidate? I don't see a reference to that on the official county clerk voting results page. Just the count of the total number of people who cast any ballot, which was 39,078.

If indeed we do have voting machines that track the number of voters who cast at least one at-large vote, then we should hope that number is 29,510 or less. 29,510 divided by 2, plus 1, is 14,756, and that's the number of votes received by Joyce Watterman (the top vote-getter). New Jersey Statutes Section 40:45-18 says that if at least one candidate received a majority, the top three candidates are elected without a runoff necessary, and "majority" is defined as half the number of voters who cast at least one vote for an at-large candidate, plus one.

But old voting machines don't have that sub-counter, just an overall counter. And if we don't have that sub-counter, then srg1 is correct. The formula is in New Jersey Statute 40:45-18:

"Voting machines to be used in the election shall be equipped, as soon as practicable, with one or more counters so connected as to keep a tally of the number of voters who cast votes for one or more of the candidates for councilman-at-large (or commissioner, or village trustee). Until suitable counters have been provided, or whenever the tally of the number of voters cannot be determined for any reason, then the number constituting the majority of the votes cast shall be computed by adding all the votes cast for each candidate for that office, dividing that total by twice the number of councilmen-at-large ... to be elected and then adding one."

There were 83,473 votes cast for at-large candidates. Divide by 6, then add 1, and a "majority" is defined as 13,913 votes. That would mean Watterman, Lavarro and Rivera each exceeded the majority and no runoff would be needed.

But if Watterman didn't receive a "majority" under whichever method is correct, then we have to have a runoff according to section 40:45-19. That section provides that the number of candidates will be twice the number of seats there are to fill. And if that happens, the runoff will be between 6 candidates: Watterman, Lavarro, Rivera, Richardson, Brennan and Perez. Connelly and Regaldo are out.

Can someone answer the question about what type of voting machines we have, and whether there was a counter of how many people cast at least one vote for an at-large seat?

radryan03 wrote:
I see this as an interesting turning point for our city.

Clearly DT cared enough to vote (consistently). The rest of Jersey City doesnt seem to care enough to even select their own representation.

I am not arguing a good or bad point here... Does this mean we are at the beggining of a new Jersey City, where the ways of DT will start to consume the surrounding neighborhoods?

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

radryan03 wrote:
I see this as an interesting turning point for our city.

Clearly DT cared enough to vote (consistently). The rest of Jersey City doesnt seem to care enough to even select their own representation.

I am not arguing a good or bad point here... Does this mean we are at the beggining of a new Jersey City, where the ways of DT will start to consume the surrounding neighborhoods?

I think the concern has to be the opposite for Ward E in the run-off. Getting people out to vote for the at-large candidates again, when Ward E is already decided.

radryan03 wrote:
I see this as an interesting turning point for our city.

Clearly DT cared enough to vote (consistently). The rest of Jersey City doesnt seem to care enough to even select their own representation.

I am not arguing a good or bad point here... Does this mean we are at the beggining of a new Jersey City, where the ways of DT will start to consume the surrounding neighborhoods?