Vote!

booth.jpgThere are those who say that voting is a hollow exercise because one vote is but a drop in the ocean, and unlikely to make a difference. Bostonist doesn't think this is a good attitude in general (what's the alternative? Using money to control large blocks of votes, giving undue influence to those with greater resources? That would be terribly un-American), but in today's preliminary election in Boston, it's not even true! Since this election winnows the field of candidates for the four at-large city council seats from 15 to eight, it lacks decisiveness and charm, and turnout is expected to be very low. That means that every vote really does count. What's more, Boston voters have the option of casting up to four votes, which is cool in a weird, European sort of way. They can choose their top four favorites or throw all their votes to one candidate to increase her likelihood of victory. Or, they could give three votes to one candidate and one to another, or two to one and two to another, or two to one and one each to two others. By Bostonist's (probably wrong) math, there are 1,905 possible vote combinations, which is pretty awesome, as far as voting goes. (See more explanations here and here.) Voters can also say "hi" to the many election monitors who will be on hand (as a result of the city's settlement with the feds to avoid a lawsuit for violations of the Voting Rights Act) and puzzle over election notices in seven languages. So basically, voting should be a ton of fun today, or at least not totally perfunctory and useless, and Bostonist strongly urges you to get out there and do it. (Somervillionaires, Medfordists, Winchesterians, and a few Woburnites go to the polls today too, to choose a replacement for deceased state senator Charlie Shannon.)

Contact the author of this article or email tips@bostonist.com with further questions, comments or tips.
user-pic
By Josh Michtom on September 27, 2005 10:26 AM Comments 0 Likes Likes

Tags:


Comments [rss]

  • OK, I get it. The reason your vote is "more influential" when you vote for just one candidate is just because you hurt all other candidates by not giving any votes to them, right? When I read about it in the paper, I got the impression that it was actually, proportionally more influential. Thanks for clearing this up.

  • Ron Newman

    Neither is true. If you vote for one candidate, she gets one vote, and nobody else gets any votes. If you vote for four candidates, each one gets a vote. In no case does any candidate receive fractional votes or multiple votes from you.

  • Wait - are you saying that if you vote for one candidate, the candidate gets one vote, but if you bullet vote for four candidates, each candidate gets one vote? I thought it was that if you voted for one candidate, s/he got one vote, and if you voted for four, each got 1/4 of a vote (that way, your vote is more influential when you vote for only one, as Steve says, above). Whether we say that every voter has four votes or that ever voter has one vote which can be divided into fractions is just semantic, because the effect on the outcome is the same, no?

  • Ron Newman

    that's not correct. If you vote for only one candidate, that candidate gets only one vote. Not four.

  • True. I misstated the system somewhat, although the effect is the same: If you vote for only one candidate (and leave the other three spaces blank), that candidate gets four times as many votes counted toward her as she would if you had voted for her and three others. So maybe a better way to put it is that you have one vote, but you can divide it among up to four candidates. I guess it's also true that if you fill in only three spaces, each candidate gets one-and-one-third votes. Right?

  • Ahh.. no.



    You can only vote for one candidate once. You can not vote multiple times for one candidate.



    Bullet voting, but voting for one candidate, and leaving the other THREE VOTE BLANK, gives more influence to your single vote fot your chosen candidate.

  • Right you are, Ron. I have made the necessary correction. (I let my Somerville-centrism get the better of me.) Thanks.

  • Ron Newman

    The special State Senate election today is not just for Somerville, but also for Medford, Winchester, and a little bit of Woburn.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Home

Tips

The day's most popular stories from Bostonist every evening in your inbox from our newsletter.

About Bostonist

Bostonist is a website about Boston. More

Editor: Matthew Gannon

Publisher: Gothamist

About Us & Advertising | Archives | Contact | Mobile | RSS | Staff

Most Popular

More

Contribute

Latest Tip:

nice
[more]

Latest Photo:

CONTRIBUTE NOW!

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Bostonist.

All Our RSS

Upcoming Music (Tourfilter)