To the editor:
I’ve lived in Pelham Manor for 11 years, serving on the Friends of the Town of Pelham Public Library board for seven or those years. I fought hard to bring food waste recycling to the Pelhams. I’ve had two kids go through all levels of our school system, and I’ve volunteered in our schools. I care deeply about our community, and I work to improve it. I also try to vote in every election. It’s hard. There are many elections to vote in. I’d like to see the number of elections reduced, both to save money for the Manor and to increase voter participation in our elections.
Research has been conducted on the effect of syncing local elections with higher level elections. “Turnout for synced local elections is often more than double the rate of turnout for unsynced elections, and the voters who turn out in synced elections are significantly more representative of the electorate overall. These effects are especially strong when local elections are synced with presidential elections, rather than midterm or primary elections.”
While some have expressed concerns that voters in synced elections will be less informed about local issues, research suggests that synced elections actually lead to better representation and accountability.
The Village of Pelham Manor trustees spent almost $58,000 of taxpayer money in order to prevent Pelham Manor residents from voting on this initiative. That makes me mad, not only because it’s a waste of taxpayer money—that could have been put toward fixing our flooding issues—but because the available research shows syncing elections leads to greater voter participation. Meanwhile, there is zero evidence that “local issues” will be drowned out. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic by people who are scared of full voter participation. We should ALL want as many voters to vote as possible in every election. It’s a foundational tenet of our democracy.
Debbie Winstead
14 Witherbee Ave.