Readers…what happened? The dog ate your ballot? You had to visit sick Aunt Jenny? You would leave the voting to more knowledgeable voters?
Nearly 80% of Santa Clara voters DID NOT VOTE!
What happened? Whether you were thrilled with the outcome, disappointed, or didn’t even care, you will live with the results created by a small minority of residents.
Friends, this is frightening!
There is NO good reason to not participate in one of the most important and critical privileges we possess as citizens. The right to vote is a gift which my father and thousands of others gave their lives for in a war that could have prevented you and me from ever voting again.
Not voting is how we, as residents, inherit people in power who are pitiful and practices that are painfully pathetic.
And you feel powerless?
If you do not vote, you cannot complain. Regardless of whether your issue or candidate of choice is victorious or defeated, if you did not vote, why should you have any right to complain?
You can currently complain because we remain a free country. However, that freedom is under siege from a movement to eliminate the right to have a different opinion.
Would you be happy with only the right to think about what you are told to think?
The right to still vote and, making the effort to vote, continues to validate that our freedoms, our causes, our county, and country’s continuity continues through…VOTING!
There is no penalty for not voting. You don’t pay a fine. You don’t go to jail. You are not taken off the voter rolls. However, you do get what others pick for you.
Mark your calendar with a circle for Nov. 5, 2024. Take 30 minutes to read your voter pamphlet and consider your choices and why you need to vote.
Honor my father and the thousands of fathers who gave their lives so you and I can cast ballots for the candidates we believe will do the best job to represent us in town, in the state and the nation.
View Comments (7)
"We do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." - Thomas Jefferson
.
In speaking with three Santa Clarans who voted No on Measure B, they believed the POA marketing material that stated there are dozens of PORAC candidates ready to run for police chief. They didn't even know what PORAC is but assumed they were Santa Clara officers. The three also saw Council Member Jain interviewed on the news stating there are ten officers living in Santa Clara who, they presumed, were qualified for police chief. I told them technically, one just needs a GED and four years law enforcement experience to run for police chief, they refused to believe requirements were that low. Then one asked, "what are the requirements to be President of the United States?" Continuing, "look was Democrats did to President Trump, I think the 49ers were doing the same against the Police Chief."
.
The election in March had four significant challenges:
1) Political money from organizations outside of Santa Clara greatly outweighed the grassroots, resident supported YES on B side.
2) Many residents who voted did not do much research, if any at all.
3) The same lack of participation that enabled Laurie Smith to remain in office for so long also negatively affected change in Santa Clara.
4) Educated Santa Clarans were too lazy to stand up and vote against Santa Clara Trumpsters.
.
Change still needs to be made in Santa Clara. Hopefully Santa Clarans will take these next seven-and-a-half months to educate themselves and muster enough pride to get out and vote.
CSC,
.
This should not have been rushed onto the March ballot. A November election would have given more time to the committee process and public education and outreach and also would have made the voter pool less unfavorable.
.
It is a pity that the council majority has behaved in ways that has lost them the trust of so many Santa Clarans. As a result they became ineffective if not counterproductive campaigners for the measures.
.
I hope to see an effort to go to appointments in the future and for that effort to be spearheaded by political leaders who are smarter in how they bring it to voters and who have given no reason to believe are aligned with corporate special interests and who also are above the political squabbling that they criticize in others.
.
It will take a lot to overcome the general tendency of people to choose elections over appointments and to educate the ignorant that this is not the normal way of doing things. It will take a lot to overcome the fact that the most likely and most civically engaged voters are older and more conservative.
.
This never should have been an effort that was crammed into a few months.
Waiting for the November election would have been a gamble against logic as there would not only be a question if the city should continue to elect the Chief of Police, but there would also be a question to select the Chief of Police candidate of choice. To remove confusion, it was best to pose the charter amendment question this month.
.
Voters will not give more effort to doing research in November. More people will just come out fired up by their choice for President of the U.S.
.
Behavioral problems within the City Council include Lisa Gillmor and Kathy Watanabe.
.
“Older and more conservative” voters are not necessarily Trumpsters, apologies if my comment appeared that way. Remember in the most conservative counties in California and throughout the Countr most city police chiefs are appointed. Unfortunately, it was moderate Democrats with a 2-to-1 advantage in the City of Santa Clara who did not show up to vote.
CSC,
.
I understand the issue of confusion if there was an election to end election of police chiefs on same ballot as election of a new police chief. It would not be ideal but demographic of voters for low turnout elections always skews more conservative and the two measures only pass when voters get over the conservative resistance to change and to take law enforcement at their word.
.
While it may have been more confusing, a general election would bring a larger voter base that would have a higher ratio of voters more open to changing how we do things. I think both measures would still lose in November but by less big margins.
.
The councilpeople who tried to get these passed and this publication also all failed to understand what could get Santa Clara to take a real look at making a change. Santa Clarans who feel that Santa Clara's police force is serving them well are not going to to want to make a big change to how the police chief is selected. The council majority and this publication were all too chicken to make the negative arguments that you often made in comments here. They tried to argue that Pat Nikolai should not be police chief but did not explain how Nikolai has not done a good enough job in their eyes. They tried to insinuate that the police force needs better leadership without really saying so and without presenting arguments about what they think our police are doing poorly.
.
The closest they got was to insinuate that our police force makes too much money but they did this tepidly and this was the most adversarial they were willing to get. Of course the measures lost.
I agree with how surprised I was with the low voter turnout. Especially as the last few years and elections have shown just how important our right to vote is. It is upsetting to see so many complaining about laws or politicians who then seem to not take the small amount of time to help form the government they would hope to have. PLEASE vote! It is a right we should all be proud to be able to participate in, now more than ever.
I was not happy with the low vote count. It seems that people needed to read the proposal better. It was difficult to explain that appointment instead of election was better. Because the POA controlled the past 6 0f 9 elections which had only one candidate. I maintained that it was not a true election. Democratice Elections have at least 2 candidates. When only one candidate runs, it is not even aa referendum where you can vote "Yes " or "No" It is like how Putin runs without opposition. It may have been too difficult to convince the few voters we had with so much money spent by the POA.
Wes,
.
The comparison to an election in Russia that is predestined to be won by Vladimir Putin is taking things too far.
.
This election was a true election. I agree that turnout was a problem but I would not have rushed the issue to the March ballot. I would have put it on the November ballot which will have high turnout due to the presidential election.
.
The advocates of the measure are to blame for this. They are also to blame for putting forth weak arguments for why the city should make the change. There was nothing but weak and uncompelling arguments against the lack of tough competition for the job. I agree with the argument but it is not enough to convince a majority to make a change.
.
These measures and any future attempts will win or lose based upon tough criticism of our police chief and the police force. If this cannot be made then people will not feel the need to change the process. Most people do not feel this affects them because I think that most of Santa Clara feels that crime is no more of an issue for us than it is for similar neighboring cities or maybe less of an issue compared to some. So most people do not care if the process remains the same or is changed.
.
Proponents of the measure failed to communicate to the people of Santa Clara how their lives would be improved by a change in the process so of course they failed. And placing the measures on the March ballot made failure a foregone conclusion.