Advanced voting began today with no Watkinsville residents casting any ballots
The inexcusable repeat referendum on liquor by the drink sales in maybe two or three restaurants locally advance voting began and as a proper illustration of the sheer lunacy in voting for the same words in consecutive elections, no one showed up in the first day of early voting for the March 17th election.
Unfortunately this also provides ammunition for those wanting to eliminate or otherwise reduce the advance voting period, something that has always appeared to be a better advantage for well organized campaigns and typically Democratic candidates.
I will saunter down to Water Street and vote in favor of liquor by the drink in protest only because it is an undue burden to expect the voting populace to make repeat approval of the same words. I hope the election remains pro forma, and the referendum will pass as it did before. But in small special elections, anything can happen, so if you want a gin and tonic at Girasoles, you better go vote to pass the liquor by the drink distilled spirits referendum in the next couple of weeks or on the actual special elections day of St. Patrick's Day Tuesday, March 17.
It would be wonderful if every voter in the municipality would show up to cast their ballot one way or the other, but we all know that is not going to happen. You might see as few a 6% of the local electorate making a decision for you. If someone can cite chapter and verse wherein the City Charter expressly adjudicates this kind of authority, I will get off my high horse on this one. But I think all of the members of the City Council are good people, as is the Mayor, and I know they would not be doing this unless they absolutely think they had to. I would suggest the Mayor could put on the agenda, and ask for a second, on a motion to adhere to the recent countywide election as everyone who voted in the race where I lost to Mike Link also had an opportunity to vote (or not vote) on the original countywide referendum.
It just comes off as unnecessary, repetitive, and not the best light for the city of Watkinsville.
Unfortunately this also provides ammunition for those wanting to eliminate or otherwise reduce the advance voting period, something that has always appeared to be a better advantage for well organized campaigns and typically Democratic candidates.
I will saunter down to Water Street and vote in favor of liquor by the drink in protest only because it is an undue burden to expect the voting populace to make repeat approval of the same words. I hope the election remains pro forma, and the referendum will pass as it did before. But in small special elections, anything can happen, so if you want a gin and tonic at Girasoles, you better go vote to pass the liquor by the drink distilled spirits referendum in the next couple of weeks or on the actual special elections day of St. Patrick's Day Tuesday, March 17.
It would be wonderful if every voter in the municipality would show up to cast their ballot one way or the other, but we all know that is not going to happen. You might see as few a 6% of the local electorate making a decision for you. If someone can cite chapter and verse wherein the City Charter expressly adjudicates this kind of authority, I will get off my high horse on this one. But I think all of the members of the City Council are good people, as is the Mayor, and I know they would not be doing this unless they absolutely think they had to. I would suggest the Mayor could put on the agenda, and ask for a second, on a motion to adhere to the recent countywide election as everyone who voted in the race where I lost to Mike Link also had an opportunity to vote (or not vote) on the original countywide referendum.
It just comes off as unnecessary, repetitive, and not the best light for the city of Watkinsville.
Comments