"What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn't make a difference?" - Granite Grok

“What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn’t make a difference?”

Over at Townhall, Judge Napolitano penned a column that caught my eye:

What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn’t make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if “one person, one vote” is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance?…

A charade, a farce, and the meaning of democracy is no more.  This country was built on the foundation of one man, one vote; that this one vote is precious and it should count for something.  Casting that vote is the culmination of  a sovereign citizen deciding how they will be governed by the elected and that includes guidance to the elected when voting on specific issues.  The problem here is that the “elected” (School Board) decided that the citizens don’t know what is best for them (or their families).  To start things off, watch Kurt Webber, Chair of the Gilford School Board, reaction to the call out of “arrogance” as a town resident takes him to task for ignoring the will of the voters:

Yes, Webber is not a happy camper and it is obvious that he is not too keen at being taken to task.  Yes, it is edited, but the context of the full video can be watched here at my blog, GilfordGrok (“all things Gilford”), Part 4, starting at about 5:20).  The event was a joint meeting of the Selectmen and School Board held to ‘listen to public input’ as each is having to deal with citizens having brought forward Petition Warrants that, if implemented, would place tax caps on their budgets.

Why?  What the Judge is talking about has happened in my hamlet – the resident is trying to get Webber to understand why people in town are upset with School Board.  The topic – full day kindergarten (the local communities in NH can make that decision for themselves) and why did the School Board decide to unilaterally implement it EVEN AS THE TOWN FOLK HAD PREVIOUSLY VOTED IT DOWN?  Sounds like  elitists telling the proles “we don’t care about your vote”.

Oh sure, perhaps it saved some money – the elimination of some busing for a total yearly savings of about $11,000 which was loudly trumpeted.  Yet, upon my asking, the extra staffing cost to make that program work was the opportunity cost of a reading teacher that had to be moved from another area to the kindergarten, a greater cost, is simply brushed aside (as the bottom line was unchanged from a staffing perspective).

Prior to the above meeting was another one – the Gilford Candidate (speeches, Q & A respectively) night held by the High School student Council.  I have abstracted out a question that another resident specifically asked three of School Board candidates: “why did you go against the vote of the town and implement full day kindergarten?“.  Here, both incumbents, Chair Kurt Webber and Past Chair Sue Allen defend their decision to override the vote of the Town simply because it saved money and they were elected to make the decisions.

I note with pride that my friend, Doug Lambert was also part of the group that was asked the question – and that from a Conservative standpoint, a Constitutional (US or NH) standpoint, and from one that stands up for that foundation of “one man, one vote”:

“What can I say?  That’s just another example of how the School Board does what they want…if it’s a vote they disagree with, they just do what they want….if they had all these facts and everything was on their side, bring it to the people, let the people vote.  I’m more than willing to trust voters in the town of Gilford.”

The full question:

Several years ago, the School Board put a warrant article on the ballot for all day kindergarten.  The voters of Gilford rejected the measure.  Regardless of the cost, why do you feel it is acceptable to now incorporate it without the voters input? Why do you think you have it both ways and do it by Executive fiat?

>