Dear Editor:
It is well past time for the county and/or individual municipalities to engage the services of a private firm which will go out and provide an accurate accounting of the number of voters who actually reside in and are eligible to vote in this area. This is a statement about the dramatic changes in the residentiality of the area and not a statement about the County. The government does not have the personnel necessary to perform this arduous task. However, until we have an accurate number count, we will continue to be deceived about election turnout figures and other important statistical information. In this election, for example, we are led to believe that some 50 percent of the voters actually voted. My experiential sense is that there are nowhere near as many actual potential voters as are listed on the rolls. Therefore, my belief is that the number of persons who voted represented a larger percentage of eligible voters than reported. That figure was based on the existing list which I believe to be vastly overstated. It is well past time when we pay much more serious attention to the voting process overall in this country, and we can begin with this important local step.
I also recommend that a runoff election be held much closer to the original election than now is the process. There is absolutely no valid reason nor any necessity for a four or five week span between elections. The candidates in the runoff have been campaigning for a long time prior to the original election. Did anyone really learn anything new about the candidates between the election and the runoff? Moving the runoff closer to the original election date would allow more time, necessary time for a reasonable and efficient transition of government on the plus side and would create no hardship whatsoever on the negative side. There is a need to expedite and facilitate the continuum of government, and that will be addressed by moving the runoff date up.
The two most recent municipal elections in Jersey City have seen four council members elected who were not on the slate of the mayoral victor. That indicates a more probing electorate regarding their council representation and furthers my long standing argument that Jersey City should elect its council either on a separate time frame from the mayoral candidates or that more council candidates should consider running together as a council slate without a mayoral candidate. That would provide at least some opportunity for independent council representation and eliminate the opportunity for council members to be perceived, or really, to be purely rubber stamp supporters of a mayor or clearly anti everything regarding the mayor. The council members would become more accountable to their local constituents and less obligated for or against the mayor.
I also believe that it is well past time to abolish the “at large” council seats and have the council comprised of nine individual ward representatives. Again, greater individual representation of the constituency is the primary reason and result.
Of course, the single most important thing that should take place is the abolition of The Faulkner Act. This absolutely unconstitutional lunacy violates every letter and all spirit of the constitutional birthrights of American citizens. It provides different rules for different citizens and different rules for different places. I am personally offended by the very existence of such a heinous document in this or any other nation on Earth, and I respectfully urge everyone to take a good long look at this thing which tells us how we can elect our representatives. If we allow government to continue telling the people what they can do, we are in trouble as a people. It is we who are to tell government how they must represent us and not the other way around.
Tom Hart