Voting change is not a good idea

| 15 Feb 2012 | 09:35

    I vote by mail. If you do not, you should consider it. It is not for shut-ins anymore. If you work and frequently forget to vote, it allows you to exercise your right. Since I do, I get my ballot early (a real advantage). There is a change for Sparta voters that disturbs me, as it should you. It would change the requirement for candidates to have a majority to win an election by allowing a plurality for a win. It is said that this is done to save the money of a run-off. These days that sounds very appealing. However in recent elections we have experienced run-offs where the apparent winners were roundly defeated when more scrutiny by voters revealed that there seemed to be another agenda in play. Okay, it costs a little more. So what. To me, in an era when running for local office appears for some to be a kind of occupational therapy, it would be better than to allow some group to push forward a candidate who might cost more in the long run. The system has worked in the past. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it! Dennis Rullo Sparta Editor’s note: In an election, a majority means more than 50 percent of the vote, plurality means simply the highest number of votes, so that if three people were running and one received 38 percent of the vote, that candidate would win. Requiring a majority would mean the candidate with 38 percent would have a run-off election with the second highest vote-getter.