Orange missed an election opportunity

We can understand the arguments Orange Town Council members made in favor of keeping their elections in May, but we certainly don’t agree with them.
The town considered aligning its biennial elections with the general election in November. That move would consolidate the town’s polling place--where town residents vote each November--and save the town money by not having to stage a separate election every other May.
The primary argument in favor of keeping the election in May (and at the Orange Firehouse) is that while turnout is lower, those participating are more attuned with the candidates they’re voting for.
As we indicated earlier, we appreciate the council members’ desire for some level of intimacy with the electorate, but we think they missed out on a greater opportunity.
Those voting in November aren’t doing so accidentally. Perhaps the town could have picked up more engaged and interested citizens in the process.
As it stands, Orange voters represent a select few. The 2010 council election represented the largest turnout in the past 10 years. Picking three council members from five candidates last May, 610 of the town’s 2,500 registered voters participated--about 20 percent. Two years before 470 of 2,306 voters participated. The numbers only get worse from there. In 2006, 376 of 2,062 voted and in 2002, 114 of 1,982 cast ballots. The low point was in 2000 when only 47 of the town’s 1,877 voters participated in electing town council members.
Certainly, contested elections create higher voter participation. But do we still only want a handful of voters deciding who makes critical and key town decisions?
In Gordonsville, where town elections moved from May to November with the 2002 election, participation has averaged about 44 percent--with higher turnout associated with presidential elections in 2004 and 2008.
How can more town citizens participating in an election be a bad thing?
And, with the town facing the high cost of paying for a new wastewater treatment plant (without the connection fees to defray the cost), why wouldn’t it want to save up to $5,000 every other year by piggy-backing on the county-wide election?
Proponents of maintaining the May election contend those participating in May are more informed. That’s hard to gauge because elections are boiled down to numbers and results–not intent or rationale. Voting is private, so we don’t know why people vote for who they vote for or why they vote at all. But in a representative democracy, we can’t help but think the more people who participate, the better off we all end up being.