This is easy. Not by voter turnout or any such democratic principle but by what saves Frank Raia and Beth Mason absentee ballot money.

We should save them money and not make them buy more vote by mail ballots in November. Okay will my check be ready now at Washington and 12th?

Would one of the 6 people who have so far voted against November elections care to sign on here and give your reasons?

It depends -- how much are they paying this go-round? It's cold in fall so there'd better be a bonus.

The optimal participation in government occurs when the greatest number of people vote in any given political race. This makes the elected the most representational of the will of the people. By holding elections only on one day a year (in this case November is suggested as the easiest way to achieve that), not only do we have the highest level of participation, but also the maximum cost-effectiveness for the mechanism of physically voting.

Personally I would like to put it all on the ballot in November.

I read something in the Bergen Record on this subject and it was thought maybe a bad idea as people will not get to vote on and pass a school budget at the same time.
Did anyone read this?

Combine all of the elections and save us all time and money. We're adults, I think we're all capable of figuring out whom to vote for in a relatively short amount of time regardless of the fact that they'll be 5 more offices added to the mix. People will more likely vote if you don't make them go to the polls 6 times per year.

Amen

agreed

Karen my cursory reading of the new law is that school budgets that have year over year increases of or at 2% are no longer subject to a vote, no matter when the election is held.

Thank you Fap....

Maybe people should explore the original reasons why school board elections were moved to April in the first place? It was specifically to disengage city/state "machine" politics with the functioning of schools.