Well, that's over.
Some observations...
1. Not one candidate contributed anything to the online discussion, although all of them knew it existed. One candidate told me he would not contribute to the discussion because he did not want to participate in a "negative campaign". With one exception, I think the posts were constructive, and did not amount to electronic "mud-slinging".
One would think the candidates would have taken advantage of the cheapest, most convenient, effective and far-reaching campaign tool available, - the internet. None did.
2. Since no questions were allowed at the live debate at Nellie K. Parker (which was not widely publicized), I thought this would have been a great way to get some questions answered. I wonder if more participation by the candidates in this forum would have changed the result. After all, the highest vote getter for the "Better Education Team" only lost by 141 votes. Could the "Better Education Team" have changed the minds of some of the 1000+ voters who visited Hackensack Now? Enough to make a difference?
3. The poll results were wrong. Although, from the extremely limited participation, I doubted the sample results could have provided any useful information. I had hoped to predict the election. Maybe the poll in the Freeholder election or City Council race in 2005 will be more accurate.
4. Only 8.3 percent of the voting population voted. Due to the limited campaigning and lack of effort to get the public involved, I'm surprised voter turn-out was that high. Voters without children in school were never even notified of the live debate.
5. There was more participation in this topic than any other topic on Hackensack Now, by far. More than 1400 views, and about 45 posts! People seemed genuinely interested in the discussion and the debate was organized and civil (with a few exceptions). This, to me, is very encouraging. Thank you all for your participation.