Get Schooled

By JustMe

April 30, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

The administrators would love low turn out if it is more likely to pass the SPLOST. Why would they want to advertise it?

IMHO, it is the responsibility of the news media to advertise elections and the responsibility of the voter to know what’s going on.

I find it very sad that voter apathy continues in this Country when so many other Country’s do not allow for any elections at all. People here complain but won’t bother to vote - I just don’t understand.

By Ernest

April 30, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

This is a tough one because how would one define ‘publicizing’. I participated in the DeKalb referendum. We participated in many civic/community, business, and school forums/meetings (easily over 100). Signs were placed throughout the county creating awareness of the referendum. Ads were placed in several community papers. Robo calls and mailers were used. We even had ‘sign wavers’ at various major intersections on the day of the referendum. This was a ‘multi touch’ campaign. Despite this, only 5% of registered voters elected to participate. The only thing we did not have were tv/radio commmercials, obviously because of the expense involved.

Is there anything else we could have done? Essentially, less than 5% of the population made a decision to continue the penny tax for 5 years. Should we ‘assume’ those that did not vote are OK with the outcome of the referendum?

By Larry

April 30, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

I’ll open myself to serious criticism here, but I firmly believe if you’re not aware enough to know something as basic as when an issue is scheduled for public vote, you’re certainly not knowledgeable enough to cast an intelligent, informed vote. Low voter turnout bothers me to the extent that more people should be involved in public issues, but if they are not, I’d much rather they stay home and leave the decision making to those who are involved. Information is just too available to be uninformed.

Excuse me while I seek cover.

By Stacey

April 30, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

I live in Douglas County and the school made sure the parents were aware of the election. About a month before the election, what was originally billed as a PTA meeting turned out to be a “SPLOST Pep Rally”. Two weeks before the election, the kids brought home newsletters explaining the urgency of the election and the day before, they brought home neon-colored flyers reminding parents to get out to vote. There were also little “Vote Yes to SPLOST on (Date)” signs all over the place.

I arrived at my precinct at 6:20 that evening and one of the poll workers commented that the three voters they had at that time was the largest crowd they had seen all day. Another worker commented that I was the first to use the third of four available machines. I think that since this was the only issue on the ballot, a lot of people just didn’t find it important enough to take the time to vote. I will admit that had I had a meeting or something that evening, I probably would not have cancelled just for that.

By Stacey

April 30, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

I forgot…Like Ernest, we also received the automated phone message about the election.

By Jeff

April 30, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

We need a law that states that Elections are to be held ONLY on Election Day. That way, you don’t have to get the word out “We’re voting for this issue on this day”. Just “We’re voting on this issue”.

Think about it: These off-Election Day elections are done for the SOLE purpose of pushing something onto a community that probably would not pass on Election Day with a higher turnout…

By JustMe

April 30, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

If the community gave a darn, they would turn out to vote on any day, now won’t they?

By Jeff

April 30, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

JustMe:

Not always the case. Particularly without TV/ radio spots, there could be a valid point that many people simply didn’t know about it. I know that was the case in Bartow on quite a few non-Election Day elections. And don’t give me this crap about “but we sent letters home with the kids”. That’s called RIGGING THE ELECTION. If you didn’t do just as much to publicize to non-parents as you did to parents, you have rigged the election to fit your desired outcome and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of both state and Federal laws.

By high school teacher

April 30, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

Schools aren’t allowed to proffer an opinion on which way to vote; they just encourage the parents to exercise their right to vote. Sadly, voting is not a priority anymore.

I was amazed when I watched the news last night - in Turkey 700,000 people were protesting against one of the presidential candidates. Wow! Where is that passion in America?

By Jeff

April 30, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

hst:

who is more likely to support a SPLOST: someone with a kid in school or without?

It is RIGGING THE ELECTION for schools to be sending out these letters.

By Lisa B.

April 30, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

The recent vote for SPLOST here in Southwest Georgia was advertised with signs all over the place, news coverage via radio, TV and newspaper, parent newsletters sent by the schools, etc. Voter turnout was very low. People just don’t care. If they are against the 1% SPLOST, they should have shown up to vote against it.

By JustMe

April 30, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

With your passion, I encourage you to start a committee to publicize elections. Our society needs people with passion to become involved and to get others involved.

By high school teacher

April 30, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this

Perhaps the number of posts today is indicative of the concern for school elections? :)

By Stacey

April 30, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this

LOL @ HST 3:16pm

Jeff…As far as the schools trying to rig the election by sending home literature regarding the election, do you know if there is a law and/or rule against it? (It’s a sincere question as I don’t know the answer). If not, why wouldn’t campaign to their targeted office?

Again, I can only speak for my county, but there were posters all over the place tauting the election. I know some people may have seen the signs but not understood what they were talking about, but in that case, I think it is up to the voters to find out. JMO. ;-) As far as only

By Blind Homer

April 30, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this

If my memory is correct, Paulding county had a SPLOST on the ballot during the general election, which failed. They then ran it again in a spoecial election and it passed. Additionally, lots of threats of split sessions etc. if it didn’t pass. Why not just put the Administrators and teachers on street corners with cans?

By Jeff

April 30, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

Blind:

My point exactly. Force the schools to compete for their money with every other government service. THEN we may start to see some ACTUAL change.

By jim d

April 30, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this

It truly is a sad state of affairs when less than 10% of the populace is informed enough to care about voting on any issue.

I guess we really do get what we deserve.

By mmm

April 30, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

One of the questions here is whether the more motivated and more informed should have a bigger voice in decision making.

It is clear that these off general election single issue votes generate a much smaller turn-out. But I think it could be argued that a few well-informed folks really may make a better choice that having more people choose a candidate or position almost at random because it is one of 60 items on a ballot where they have knowledge of maybe the first 5.

Isn’t this the reason we elect “representitives” rather than having a direct democracy as they did in Athens.

I think that we might be better served if some of the down ballot positions such as school board members were also elected when there is a low turn out. It might be easier to boot incumbents from office. As it is vague, “name recognition” equates votes from the uninvolved or barely aware. A school board challenger faces incredible odds if they must make themselves recognizable to those no longer interested in the schools, but who may remember a name from when they did have kids 20 years ago. (never mind that the board member has not had a new idea in the last 15 years.)

By jim d

May 1, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

MMM,

Unfortunately, in Gwinnett County, what happens is that the few that do vote aren’t really that informed. What we’ve seen happen in Gwinnett with low voter turn out is that those voting generally have a vested interest in seeing that things don’t change or that they do change in a particular fashion. So what happens is that we have roughly 4% of the registered voters that are dictating policy. That 4% consists largely of business associates of the school system and people that are - or have been employed by the school system, that all stand to gain.

I’m in no way ditching teachers here but to be quite honest, many of them that I know or have known, in the GCPS system, on a personal level, really aren’t that well informed about the issues. They hear one side or are heavily influenced by another educator who may have an agenda or vested interest in seeing that a particular policy is enacted.

Here’s the real problem as I see it. School board members have this ego thing going on that leads them to believe that because they are re-elected by a majority of the 8% of the voters showing up, they have been given a mandate to continue with the same ol same ol. So no meaningful change ever occurs and board members end up there for life. But then that is JMHO. Well founded however, on over 12 years of observation of the Gwinnett County Board of Education.

I’m confident all school systems don’t operate this way. God bless you folks in other counties for being vigilant enough to keep it from happening.

By Ernest

May 1, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

HST, your 3:16 post earlier was right on target! I bet if race was somehow intertwined in this topic, we’d have over 100 posts :).

Stacey, a school system can only provide information about a SPLOST however legally can not advocate one way or the other. The information may seem one-sided however you should never hear them say to vote YES.

Jeff, your ‘rigging the election’ comments seem quite harsh. In fact, those most likely to ‘vote’ in a referendum are empty nesters. They ultimately will make a decision as to whether a SPLOST is a worthwhile investment (it can help increase property values) or a boondoogle (lack of confidence in those managing the monies).

By Jeff

May 1, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

Ernest:

Nice rarely gets results. What would you say to someone who advertised primarily at car dealerships for a referendum on road improvements? Or to someone who advertised primarily at an emergency room for a referendum on hospital improvements?

Point being that if you send these letters home with kids, you are advertising to the very people you know are most likely to vote as you would have them vote. Just because you hide behind “but we don’t TELL them how to vote” does NOT mean that you are not stacking the deck, ie rigging the election.

By high school teacher

May 1, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

• What would you say to someone who advertised primarily at car dealerships for a referendum on road improvements? Or to someone who advertised primarily at an emergency room for a referendum on hospital improvements?*

I’d say that they were using their resources wisely. What is the point of your argument? Are you saying that school systems don’t deserve SPLOST money? You mentioned that schools should be forced to complete for funding. With whom would they compete?

Call it what you will, but sending students home with flyers that don’t encourage a “yea” or “nay” vote does not constitute election rigging. If the school system didn’t attempt to inform their parents, who probably are the largest group of voters in a community, then someone would complain about trying to have a secret election.

By Jeff

May 1, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this

hst:

They would compete with every other government agency of that level (city or county).

I STILL claim they are secret elections if the primary advertisement is done to one segment of the population. (As is happening when you send fliers home.) Special interest group activation is what PACs are for. The GOVERNMENT should be REQUIRED to inform the ENTIRE populace EQUALLY about an upcoming election.

And the easiest way to do that is REQUIRE that ANY election be on either Primary Day or Election Day. (Which STILL gives you two days to choose from, and even this system isn’t perfect - look at turnout for Primaries - but it is better than “Oh, by the way, we’re gonna have an election a week from tomorrow”

By Ernest

May 1, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Jeff:

Using your logic, one could say the responsibility to inform the masses would fall to the local Board of Elections. After all, an entity must file a request to them a few months in advance to hold an election/referendum. The information is posted on their website. That gets back to my question again about the ‘effort’ that should be taken to publicize an election.

If communications were ‘limited’ to those with children, you might have a point. If a good faith effort was made to create awareness to the masses yet not many showed up, the responsibility should fall back to the registered voters.

By Jeff

May 1, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Ernest:

Were equal numbers of dollars AND man-hours spent trying to communicate to both parents and non-parents?

If you can honestly answer yes, then while I still say elections need to be held ONLY on Primary Day or Election Day, I can agree that in this case the responsibility should fall back to registered voters.

By jim d

May 2, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

Ernest,

I think Jeff brings up a valid point.

In a SPLOST referendum we see schools sending home flyers to parents to remind them to vote. They use our tax dollars to pay for these flyers. They often arrange for meetings at schools at taxpayer expense to be held promoting the passage of a SPLOST.

Now let’s just ask ourseleves if they would be doing this if they were hoping parents of students would turn down funding for the institution they are employed by?

If tax dollars are to be spent reminding people that might benefit from a SPLOST to get out and vote, should the schools not then be required to send reminders to every voter in the district regardless of how they think they might vote? I think this is a legitamate question.

By parentof2

May 2, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this

In my county’s recent SPLOST vote, many flyers were sent home to parents and also delivered door to door. But no tax dollars were allowed to be used to pay for the flyers or any part of the promotion to get out the vote. We were reminded of this often by the superintendant and the school principals.

PTA and private donors paid for the flyers and parents handed them out. Perhaps it was that way in your county too. Did you ask anyone? Or are you just making assumptions?

By Jeff

May 2, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

parentof2:

You gotta remember something about me: I’ve seen the corruption of the CES (Current Education System) upclose and personal, and felt its wrath.

Therefore, I would INSIST on seeing STONE COLD, IRON CLAD PROOF that ZERO government resources were spent on this. (Up to and including signs could not be made on school property or by school employees during their working hours, either on or off campus.)

By Ernest

May 2, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

Jeff and JimD:

In fairness, you are asking for a metric that is difficult to measure. I agree with your point, if one speaks at a PTA meeting, there is a high likelihood of most attendees being parents. No brainer. If one speaks at a church, community meeting, business gathering, the audience will be mixed thus difficult to say what percentage are parents with children currently in school and those without.

I would argue that is is reasonable for a school system to provide information, i.e. brochures, flyers, etc. If they didn’t, how would citizens understand what they are voting for? Private citizens don’t ask for SPLOST, school systems do. It was available for ALL citizens on their website. Heck, the AJC did several stories on SPLOST. In DeKalb, several schools reminded citizens about the referendum on their marquees. I believe I can honestly say there was not an attempt to ‘exclude’ a certain segment of the population from receiving information. I didn’t realize there are firms that analyze voting results/patterns and can identify likely voters along with precincts that traditionally have high turnouts.

It still comes back to how does one define a ‘reasonable’ attempt to inform the population at large. What responsibility do citizens have to research and get information? You can make citizens aware of elections but your can’t force them to go and vote….

By Jeff

May 2, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Ernest:

That’s why I push for ALL elections to be on either Primary Day or Election day. Not just SPLOST, but ANY election.

We do not condone the Government taking a position on who we should choose for President. (In other words, we have laws saying that government resources cannot be used to campaign for President - though I’m sure those currently in government violate them quite frequently.) Why then do we condone school systems taking a position on SPLOST???

By jim d

May 2, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

Ernest,

Bottom line is that it is our personal responsability to become knowledgable about the issues and when they are coming up for a vote. With this I agree. My point was simply that Jeff raises an interesting point.

parentof 2,

I think I can safely assume that teachers didn’t hand out the flyers on their own time. Sure this may not seem like much but then consider if each teacher in the system spends five minutes a day for just one day doing this the amount of manhours being used at taxpayer expense. Consider the fact that in systems like mine that the school system is the largest employer in the county and is even rated amongst the top 10 in the state. Now were talking about what some might consider “real chump change”. So while you insist that no tax dollars were used, I suggest you may be less than 100% correct.

By jim d

May 2, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

I’m not too sure it would matter if people turned out to vote.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/usavotefacts.html

By Ernest

May 4, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this

Larry Major of Dacula had an interesting comment to this in the 5/4 AJC. “Forcing SPLOST votes to high-turnout election dates will not result in better informed voters. The only result would be more votes cast by people who have no idea what they’re voting for.”

By Robert Goldsborough

May 4, 2007 10:39 PM | Link to this

International news seems to be lacking but, lots of Gore. Not even a local news what about political cartoons games: like chess? Comic strips and otherwise and witty commentary seems to be lacking. Please unsubscribe me! Point