By Kenneth Kowald
Our friends' polling place was not changed or done away with, as I understand many were throughout the Golden State. They used an electronic ballot, so there was no danger of the famous chads that co-opted the 2000 presidential election in Florida. (But there are many other dangers with electronic voting.)
There were more than 100 candidates for governor on the ballot, and throughout the state the listing varied from place to place. The material sent to voters before the election showed what the listing was in that particular place, but they still had to find the candidate they wanted.
This grand entertainment once again convinced me that a great many Californians are quite mad. I first became persuaded of that when I was in the Army and met a group of Californians for the first time, although I will admit they were all from Southern California, aka la-la land. Northern Californians, I have observed, are different and there have been movements to divide the state in half, north and south.
One of my heroes, President Theodore Roosevelt, is reputed to have said, “When I am in California, I am not in the West, I am west of the West.” This shows that TR could be as cutting as the next guy.
But before I make any more snide comments about California, let me note that many more people voted in the recall election than in the regular gubernatiorial election in 2002. And every voter, at least in our friends' district, walked away with a small paper stick-on with the words “I Voted” against the background of the American flag, a sign for others who had not participated to get with it. Not a bad idea for Queens.
Before we pat ourselves on the back about how advanced we are in elections, let's look at some facts about voting in Queens.
In the past November election, about 13 percent of those eligible to vote showed up in New York City. Staten Island had the highest turnout, about 17 percent, and the Bronx the lowest, about 9 percent. That leaves Queens in the miserable middle of this affront to democracy.
Oh, sure, it wasn't election for president, governor or mayor. But what about judges? What about propositions put before the electorate? What about the district attorney and City Council members? In Queens, we should be especially ashamed about that last category. Nine of the 51 Council members were unopposed in the city and seven of them were from Queens.
When I was studying American history, I was taught that only President George Washington qualified to be unopposed for office. Apparently there are others so wonderful that the public just says, “Keep going, kid, you're so great you don't need an opponent.”
If you believe that, how would you like to buy a slice of the Long Island Expressway – cheap?
And when was the last time an incumbent member of the state Assembly or Senate from Queens or anywhere else was defeated for re-election? You have to die in office or go to jail to lose a seat in those august bodies, it would seem. No term limits there, of course. A few months ago, Thomas Suozzi, the Nassau County executive, was quoted as saying that legislative incumbents have “a re-election rate higher than the Politburo in the old Soviet Union.” And no one has disputed him. How could they?
There are specific lessons to be learned from California and we'll relate them to Queens next time.
