Island weekly’s call for bullet voting is an affront to democracy

COMMENTARY

Fixated on the sale of the electric system, the editors of the island weekly encouraged their readers to case only one vote in an election in which votes are asked to select up to three candidates out of the seven-candidate field. — Fixated on the sale of the electric system, the editors of the island weekly encouraged their readers to vote for only one candidate, though voters have the right, and some might argue the responsibility, to select three candidates out of the seven-candidate field.

MARK SCHUMANN

The editors of Vero Beach 32963 and Vero Beach City Councilwoman Pilar Turner have a lot in common. Most notably, they have no heart for the city they claim to serve. To read the pages of the divisive island weekly, and to listen to Turner, one could easily get the misimpression the city’s government can do no right.

In endorsing Turner – the one candidate who has done the most to divide the community, to slash municipal services and to disrespect and alienate City staff — the island weekly urged its readers to throw away two of their three votes by casting a ballot only for Turner. This call for bullet voting is an affront to democracy. In an election where three candidates will be elected, three votes should be cast.

It matters not to the editors of the island weekly that Turner tried to sell Crestlawn Cemetery, initially supported turning over the dog park to a private rowing club, continues to support handing over the City’s profitable water and sewer system to the County, and attempted to tie the hands of the attorney who is defending the City against legal assaults from the County Commission and the Indian River Shores Town Council.

In fact, if Turner had her way, the City of Vero Beach would be disincorporated and folded into County government.

Even the Press Journal’s pro-sale editorial board endorsed Jay Kramer, though for some puzzling reason, they could not bring themselves to endorse a third candidate.

If online polls are any indication of voter sentiment, Jay Kramer and Randy Old will likely lead the vote count. What remains to be determined is whether Jack Shupe or Pilar Turner will win the third Council seat to be filled in this election.

Together, there is much Amelia Graves, Jay Kramer, Randy Old and Richard Winger can do to restore civility to Council meeting, to address the Lagoon crisis, to reform pensions, to maintain and strengthen City services, and most importantly, to keep Vero Vero.

Alone, there is little Turner will be able to do to further weaken the City. In a way, it would almost serve Turner right to have to spend the next two years as a minority of one, casting the lone dissenting vote on every measure Graves, Kramer, Old and Winger take to put things right. Voters should spare Turner the two years of pure frustration she will otherwise have to endure.

3 comments

Mrs. Turner, despite her claims, has sat on the dais making faces when comments are not to her liking. She supposedly is our representative to FMPA meetings but does not appear to want to work with them, merely destroy them. I am sure there are perfectly good ways to make changes in VB – but not the way she and her cohorts would like. This household will be using itsright to select THREE for City Council and none of them will be Mrs. T.

the way I see it is that Charlie (election fraud and sign violation) and Harry Howe (printing party affiliation on a flyer in a non-partisan race) will be answering to election violations since their names are now on the ballot. They will be busy and Pilar has no reason. Does Paul Swanbeck really want to get involved with Charlie.? His letter to Tammy Vock stating he let Charlie move in on Aug 20 has too many holes in it with documentation indicating otherwise. Paul has to live in his own shoes and he may regret that he got himself involved. Only time will tell. Coming up with $3000.00 before being allowed to move in does not sound like Paul was that confident of good old Charlie. Oh, what a wicked web………..do you suppose, the intent was to deceive?