A straw man argument occurs when one side portrays the other to be something it is not, and then attacks the other side based on the false portrayal. Politicians use this when they lack valid arguments to back a position they are taking.
From the outset of an initiative to move the Lewiston municipal election date to June, residents in favor of the proposal have faced a straw man argument put forward by opponents to the change. As the resident spearheading the initiative, I would like to make clear exactly what the proposal is.
If this reform is instituted and we begin voting in June, every single Bates student will continue to be able to vote in Lewiston. Since the reform would only apply to municipal elections in odd-numbered years, Bates students could continue voting in Lewiston during presidential and gubernatorial elections, and could vote absentee or return to Lewiston for municipal polls.
There is a fundamental difference between preventing someone from voting and encouraging them to vote in a more appropriate place.
Simply put, Bates students are not vested enough in Lewiston to ethically vote in municipal elections, yet the current system makes it easier for them to cast a ballot than it is for most long-time Lewiston residents. I feel that moving the election date to June, when Bates students are home for the summer, will encourage Bates students to vote back home rather than in Lewiston.
Tax revenue is what allows local governments to actually do things, and those governments determine what their residents pay. Where a person pays taxes and votes are directly related, because the tax paid creates a vested political interest between that person and the municipality collecting the taxes.
Lewiston residents know this well, considering the ridiculous property taxes they pay. Lifelong residents should not have to worry about losing their homes due to property taxes, and elderly residents should not have to cut from their health and other budgets in order to meet the tax demand.
The people who should be voting in Lewiston are the individuals who have a vested interest and will face the implications of each vote.
Think of an average Bates freshman — from out-of-state, lives in a dormitory, parents claim him or her on their income taxes, will permanently leave Lewiston after graduation.
A statewide political activist group shares the same ideology as many students, so that group sends students pamphlets with the names of who to vote for, paper clipped to voter registration cards. On election day, those students walk from their dorm buildings to the nearby Lewiston Armory, and cast votes for the candidates named in the pamphlets. It could not be easier.
Imagine hundreds of students doing this. It is exactly what happened in the past election. Residents of Ward One witnessed a flood of students carrying pamphlets distributed by the Maine People’s Alliance directing them who to vote for.
The MPA’s political director ran for mayor, winning the polling place where Bates students vote, but losing every other location.
In Ward One, MPA surrogate James Lysen defeated Leslie Dubois, a city councilor with a strong record of advocating for property taxpayers, by a hundred votes. Bates students vote in Ward One.
Voter turnout among wards is astonishingly consistent. In 2009, ward turnout, from highest to lowest, went Ward Two, Six, Seven, Four, One, Three, and Five. It was the same in 2011. And in 2013. And in 2015… with the exception of Ward One, which saw about 250 extra votes. That is, unquestionably, a statistical anomaly.
The MPA used unethical political electioneering to specifically target Bates students and drove those students out in huge numbers.
My initiative is a perfectly reasonable response to the noticeable faults in the current electoral system that allow such electioneering to happen in the first place. Additionally, there are many other practical reasons for moving the election date, which are reflective of modern demographics.
Opponents say that my initiative aims to prevent Bates students from voting. That is a straw man argument, and it is unequivocally false. Public support for my initiative is strong enough to give voters the final say on the matter, so I will continue to aim for that end.
Luke Jensen is a former mayoral candidate who has served as chair of the Lewiston Youth Advisory Council and as an associate member of the Lewiston Historic Preservation Review Board. He is a resident of Lewiston.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
