On November 6th, major changes in the way we handle city government are on the ballot. Only 4% of registered voters are expected to show up - the election for members of the board of education is uncontested - and fewer yet vote for any question on any ballot.
Those of us that think this whole idea of major changes in an off-off election year have a very strong argument against this travesty. Even supporters of one or another of these questions admit that next year (2014) - a tight statewide race for governor - would be a much better test for these important items. Two of the questions may involve our state reps and senators - we can ask their opinion next year.
All three questions are misleading, but question three takes the cake. It should say "Do the voters of Hartford want to give up their right to vote for registrar of voters in both primaries of the general election?
All the debate about three registrars, the operation of the office, it's budget, etc... fly in the face of the anti-democratic move creating a piece of political patronage in place of elected offices.
The Democratic registrar will not run again. The voters will have another chance in 2016 to decide if three registrars are needed. Republicans may make a campaign out of the next election. All this goes away if a tiny, less than 2%, of the votes on November 6th are in the affirmative.
Why would anybody vote to give up a right to vote? The idea that a non-partisan bureaucrat would run fair elections flies in the face of our history. No sensible politician is going to fill such an office with anybody but a friend. And, what about the built-in checks and balances we now have? By spreading the responsibility as we do now, the chances for voter fraud are reduced. by implementing a one party system, China anybody? Cuba anyone? The chance for chicanery increases dramatically.
So, vote No on Question Three on November 6th and save your right to choose your representatives who direct our elections.