The “Seagull’s View” on “Our View” – the voters have spoken!

On April 8, 2003 Branson’s Voters went to the polls in an election that was billed as a “referendum on the Branson Landing Project.”At the end of the day, if the city wide mayoral race was any indication, approximately 58% of the vote went to candidates that supported the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center and 42% to candidates that opposed it.

An “Our View” editorial piece appearing in the Springfield News Leader in their April 10, 2003 edition covered the election results and their apparent support of the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center.It quotes Mayor Lou Schaefer as saying, “There’s no question in my mind about that because that’s what the whole race was about. It’s a vote of confidence.”The piece then goes on to say, “When we [News Leader Staff] look at the tea leaves of the election, though, a mandate is much more difficult to find. Schaefer won less than half the vote to top a five-candidate field.”

In discussing the aldermanic races however, they point out that in Ward I, David Edie, who favors delaying the project, “took 50.3 percent of the vote to defeat an incumbent strongly in favor of the project.It goes on to point out that in Ward II, a five candidate race, “the two candidates backing the lakefront project got 49.8 percent of the votes. The three candidates opposed to the project took 50.2 percent.”

Things really get interesting when the piece gets to their analysis of Ward III where it states, “Only in Ward III was there anything that looked like a mandate. Project backer Beverly Martin won 57 percent of the vote in defeating Larry Taylor, the lone incumbent who consistently opposed lakefront proposals.”

Now granted that the Ole Seagull isn’t the brightest bird in the Branson sky and, at this stage of his life, confusion is easier to come by than it was a few years ago, but alas, he must admit, he is confused.If a 14% margin in Ward III looks like a mandate what is different about the 16% margin in the City wide mayoral election between candidates that very actively either supported or didn’t support the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center?

Of more importance however is the “selective manner” in which the piece chose to analyze the election results.It appears that, in the mayoral race, it was not statistically significant to point out what percentage of the vote supported candidates in favor and against the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center but it was in the case of the aldermanic races.Why?

Is it to support the conclusions and recommendations that the piece makes?Conclusions and recommendations such as “When an election indicates the community is divided down the middle, the town’s leaders need to take heed. This is a time to listen, to make sure all residents, not just two new board members, have all the information they need — and every opportunity to have their voices heard before next year’s election.”

What’s wrong with the results of this year’s election?Using the same analysis and logic that the piece uses, and applying them to the mayoral race, it appears that, city wide, 58% of the voters want the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center while 42% do not.There is absolutely nothing in the piece supporting the proposition that these voters didn’t “have all the information” they needed to make a decision and to imply otherwise does them a disservice.

Now here’s a “Seagull’s View.”Using the “Our View” criteria and applying it to the city wide mayoral vote, the 16% majority in favor of the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center candidates appears to be a significant victory.