image description
Williamstown Town Clerk Nicole Pedercini, third from left, gets her poll workers ready to certify Tuesday's results.

Williamstown Sees Unusually High Turnout in Local Election

By Stephen DravisiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — There were a lot of big winners in Tuesday's town election.
 
But the biggest of all appears to have been democracy.
 
On Wednesday morning, Town Clerk Nicole Pedercini announced that the total turnout for the local election was 1,823, or 38 percent of the town's registered voters.
 
That is modest compared to the 3,600 local ballots cast in last fall's presidential election, but it swamps participation numbers for a typical spring vote.
 
In fact, turnout Tuesday was nearly double the 10-year average for local elections in town (917).
 
"We've talked about how some of the loudest voices have been sort of controlling the narrative," newly elected Select Board member Jeffrey Johnson said Tuesday night. "I think the votes now control the narrative."
 
Johnson's contest against Anthony Boskovich and a second Select Board race that saw Wade Hasty defeat Albert Cummings likely were major contributors to the big turnout numbers.
 
"Of course turnout depends on the amount of contest, and this was the most contested election I can remember," said Anne Skinner, a former member of the Select Board and a longtime leader in the local chapter of the League of Women Voters.
 
"A good sign, I think, that people want to participate in town government."
 
In addition to the two highly-watched Select Board races, there was a "down ballot" race involving a three-way contest for the Planning Board that saw all three contestants draw considerable support.
 
The first-place finisher in the three-way Planning Board race, Roger Lawrence, received 640 votes. To put that in perspective, Lawrence received more votes than the total number of votes cast for all candidates in the town elections in 2011 (631 votes) or 2012 (538 votes).
 
Over the last 10 years, just four times before Tuesday did more than 1,000 town residents cast ballots in the May (or, last year, June) election.
 
The biggest turnout from 2011-2020 came in 2016, when 1,562 votes were cast. That year, there were three candidates vying for two seats on the Select Board, including one open seat; there also was a contentious race for two open seats on the Planning Board and a race for the now defunct Williamstown Elementary School Committee.
 
The overwhelming majority of votes cast in the election were made on Tuesday at Williamstown Elementary School. Pedercini reported that the town received 197 requests for mail-in ballots and 10 requests for absentee ballots; of those, it received 186 mail-in ballots and nine absentee ballots. So the total votes not cast in-person was 195, or 11 percent of the total balloting.
 
Editor's note: Updated at 12:24 p.m. to correct who received 640 votes in the Planning Board race,

Tags: election 2021,   town elections,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Letter: Vote No on 'Jungle' Primaries

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

They don't call them "jungle primaries" for nothing.

Question 3 on the November ballot would trash two-party primary elections and replace them with California-style, chaotic — and extraordinarily costly — "jungle" primaries that would destroy the very political parties that have kept America stable since Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison created them in the 1790s.

Jungle primaries put all candidates, regardless of party, on one ballot with the top two vote-getters facing off in the general election — even if they're from the same party. That would create chaos, but the real issue is money: Jungle primaries give a distinct advantage to candidates backed by corporate money and the super wealthy. In short, jungle primaries move our primaries from the ballot box to big donor meetings long before campaigning even begins.

When something this radical is proposed, you have to look at who's behind it, who's funding it, and ask "why" they are doing it.

Their philosophical guru is Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor who ran for governor in 2022 but couldn't get 15 percent of the Democratic Convention vote to win the party's endorsement.

The money behind this extreme attack on small "d" democratic politics tells us more. With over $5 million in the bank as of Aug. 28, this is a very well-funded campaign — the lion's share of which came from wealthy Boston-area private equity individuals.

Twenty-two private equity executives gave $3.99 million, or 77 percent of all the money from individuals. Current and former Bain Capital executives contributed $1.92 million, and Berkshire Partners executives put up $1.32 million. In short, 22 rich people put up nearly $4 million to change how five million of us vote. Yes, it seems the ultra-wealthy want to destroy the two-party system that has kept our politics stable for 200 years.

View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories