Friday, October 31, 2008


Several weeks after each general election, I go to the Board of Elections office on Wall Street and get a copy of those who voted that last Election Day.

The list is prepared as a walking list, so I can see who, at each address, actually bothered to vote.

Each year, I am shocked when I see the names of some of our most vocal, missing from that list.
What am I, or anyone in public service, to think when some of our "squeeky wheels" dont have the drive to perform their civic duty?

So, in photoshop, we created pictures of what we see when we meet one of these non-voters.
I hope to see your names on the list this year.


Anonymous said...

My name is always on the list of voters. I even make a point to vote in the School Board/budget elections and the Library Board/budget.

If I am to feel that I have any say about any of the people WE hire year after year, you can damn well be sure that I'm going to vote each election day.

The photoshop pics are a nice touch.


Joe Bubel said...

Who are those two? BTW, I am 'squeaky' and I vote.

Anonymous said...

Absentee ballots aren't even opened or counted if it is determined that the total numbers won't make a difference.

Anonymous said...

Since the good old boys control who you can cast your ballot for - the vote is a waste of time.

Anonymous said...

Mike, you can be so corny.
When I encounter a non-voter, I feel disapointed with them. To think they may have a self-esteem problem that renders them unworthy.
But hey, perhaps they werent informed enough to vote anyway.
Interesting post and pics with only 3 days to go!

Anonymous said...

During presidential elections voter turn out is nearly 80%. We should have that during local elections, because the people in the White House don't affect our lives nearly as much as alderman and Mayors.

Anonymous said...

you ought to concentrate on the city budget instead of "my vote doesnt matter!"

Anonymous said...

In recent days, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), has begun referring to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” referring to his proposed tax plan that would provide greater tax relief for lower income individuals than those with higher incomes. Obama recently explained his support for progressive taxation, saying, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Palin contends that Obama’s characterization of his tax plan revealed him to be a “socialist” who wants to “redistribute” American wealth. Palin argues that the Obama tax plan “discourages productivity,” will “punish hardwork,” and will “stifle the entrepreneurial spirit.”

Watch a compilation of Palin’s recent comments about the Obama tax plan:

Conservatives in the media have echoed Palin’s sentiments, insinuating that Obama is a “Marxist” and referring to his tax plan as “welfare.”

But Palin’s criticisms of Obama’s “spread the wealth” remarks are ironic, as she recently characterized Alaska’s tax code in a very similar way. Just last month, in an interview with Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker, Palin explained the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans “share in the wealth” generated by oil companies:

And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.

In fact, Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) program, which manages the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, brings in so much money that the state needs no income or sales tax. In addition, this year ACES will provide every Alaskan with a check for an estimated $3,200.

As Hendrick Hertzberg notes, “Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it…but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.”

Mike Madsen said...

hey 8:58...Nice of you to point out what I should be doing. It took me 14 minutes to whip up this little post, so dont worry about my time spent.

Seems you had the need to stop in and see what I wrote today, so I didnt want to disappoint.

And to everyone else, yes we are working on the budget.

Anonymous said...

Say we all get out there and vote, which I will, and your candidate Delarose wins.
Will we actually see some action from a State Senator? Will someone other than Cahill actually raise his hand and ask for economic stimulous?
If Delarose gets in, which he might, I expect big things. Sure Larkin has been to a few dinners and ribbon cuttings, but no jobs are placed in Ulster County through his or Bonacic's office, so lets see what youve got Madsen.

And yes I vote!

Anonymous said...

Shouldnt you be on Broadway changing the plastic liners in the municipal cans?

Anonymous said...

Work on the budget Yes. You have a tough job ahead of you. You can take the easy way out and cut the rec dept. and DPW if you want, but that is COWARDLY.

Close a fire station and split the firemen between the 2 remaining stations. You can then downsize the fire department through attrition. Every year one will be able to cut at least one job.

Deputy chief lefevre is suppose to retire in 09, the savings by not filling that position will save tax payers almost $100,000.00.
We cannot keep cutting rec dept and DPW. Closing 2 parks for the summer is stupid. Where are our children suppose to go who play in these parks. On the streets to get in trouble or recruited by the gangs that plague our city.

The fire departments 6.4 million dollar employee expense is too rich for the tax payer. After all there are only 64 employees in the fire department and that translate into $100,000.00 a position.

One firemen equals 3 rec or DPW position.

Sit, Click, Drive! said...

Public Service Announcement - Don't Vote

joe frank said...

To: 8:20am

I don't know this Deputy chief you mention and I hope that you do not have an ax to grind with him. Rather that your idea is sound because he is retiring anyways. Seems to me that his position does not need to be filled.

Oh and is the Union really going to file a union grievance because his job is not re-filled? Let them do it. I heard that the fire department in the past has not filled jobs up to 90 days, not 30 as Sottile has suggested. The grievance filed after 90 days will probably last another 60 days, which is almost 1/2 a year. There is 50k saved right there. Its not like the 50k will need to be retroactively paid to someone either.