The numbers in this opinion-commentary, and a single vote’s value are worth considering  when one becomes a major aspect. A number of obvious conclusions can be made in the City Ward 7 Aldermanic Election - and some less obvious elements are worth considering.

First, no one could hardly fault a candidate, losing by one vote out of 874 cast, to not consider a recount of the votes. I telephoned my opponent Wednesday morning and told him that all I talked with in our area, that knew him, had nothing but nice things to say about him and his children. I congratulated him on his great effort. I we discussed future community involvement and other personal topics. 

As the declared winner I would like to share my views leading up to the election and the results. I will start by looking at what did not happen. There were 3,884 resisted voters in Ward 7 eligible to vote, a net increase of 44 since the 2003 elections. The 873 valid votes cast represents 22.5% turnout and 77.5% did not vote. 

Having followed the voting precinct by precinct in Ward 7 since 1993, you can develop a good idea of what to expect, assuming normal issues, and average opponents. I was first elected in 1993 with a margin of well over 50% of approximately a 25% turnout. In all years but one I had to first win a primary of 3 or more candidates. In 1997 I won by 19 votes with a turnout out of less than 25%. In 2001 I was reelected with a turnout of  around 10% (unopposed).  

The off year elections (non Mayoral elections) are historically low turnout. So in the two elections 1997 and 2005 with an opponent I won both elections by only 20 votes collectively. The Council is supposedly nonpartisan, but well organized opponents backed by a political party, or likewise - a special interest group, or ethnic group could and did have a strong chance of winning an election, especially in the odd year’s elections. In fact the same candidate, backed by a political party that lost  by 19 votes in 2001 also lost by 19 votes in a Mayoral election year running against the other Ward 7 Alderman (in 1999). Understanding that once again this was likely a close race, I anticipated a heavy turnout of certain newly registered voters and previously registered voters, generally not voting in off year elections, to vote this time - mostly as a block in one of our ethnic communities. This is nothing, on my part, to be construed or implied as wrong, all  minorities need representation and the right to work and support a member of their community to be elected to public office is recognized, commonly done, and applauded.  

On Monday April 4^th - by that evening, I and my wife had finished walking over 60% of Ward 7 and talked to a large number of potential voters. I had examined the voting trends precinct by precinct comparing the 2003 precincts to the new 2005 reorganized precinct’s records. I considered all comments made to me personally, and other factors, and I believed that in normal years and with an unknown candidate I should expect 55% to 57% of the votes cast.

On Tuesday before the polls closed I showed these following special factors revision of my election projection numbers to several people at the scheduled City Council before the 6PM meeting. I  worked in the special factors for this year and concluded with a projection that anticipated a turnout of 832 voters or 21% turnout, which included the voting block factor and projected that I could receive 419 votes and my opponent would receive 413 or a 6 vote margin equaling 50.03% to 49.97% for my opponent. Everyone doubted it would be this close that saw these projection numbers, but my opponent had campaigned hard, had good support, and an incumbent of 12 years accumulates some dissenters - since you can not vote both yes and no on various issues in order to please everyone.

The actual certified election results was 873 votes cast – 437 or 50% to 436 or 49.89% for my opponent (there was one write in). I won five of the seven precincts and lost two precincts that contained most of the ethnic group residents, (which I anticipated I could loose). In reflection, I  can count scores of people I talked with that made that one vote, and my wife and I literally went the extra mile (walking the Ward streets). By Monday evening we were worn out but I walked one more street. The last person I talked to had not generally voted in off year elections but said she would this year. The first person I talked to was on Thornhill. He said that he was going to “vote for the other guy”. I asked him what I did wrong in case I should be reelected and might correct in the next four years. He said “nothing wrong”, but he was “voting for the other guy because” ( I had) “been (serving) long enough”. That last person four days later that committed to vote this year, counts as one vote gained to offset one vote lost - and elections are won or lost by a number of one votes added together. The only number needed to break a tie is one. 

Returning to “looking at what did not happen”, all who voted are to be commended and whether or not your votes represent everyone who did not vote, we can never know. My opponent’s votes of 436 do imply that 11% of voters are in opposition to me, but is this 50% total disapproval in Ward 7? I know, of course, that many persons that voted for my opponent do not in fact disapprove of my record and efforts on the council but wanted to vote for a friend or acquaintance (and some told me so). So while the one vote margin is no mandate, neither is the 11% not voting for me.

The unexpected endorsement by a local newspaper for my opponent seemed to have little or  no bearing on the race (5 votes?). The factors I used were arrived at before the paper came out Monday afternoon. Speaking of this newspaper, I was asked for comments late Tuesday night by a reporter for this paper. When asked my opinion - and then how I understand the results. I told her I was happy with the victory. And mentioned the dissenter's comments on my first stop and the voter’s intention to vote for my opponent (as an example of uncertainty of voter's opinions). I said that so few people call me on issues it is hard to determine which way to vote on some things and could not always know which way the people want me to vote since I get little input, and would like more. The quote in the article the next day is in error and is phrased in such a way that it implies ignorance and arrogance on my part. The “quote” and the implied conclusion follow:
    [Foster said he’s happy he came out on top, but realizes “I have to pay more attention to the people”]
 First, I did not say this. I “pay” very close “attention” to each call or contact. And second, I “realized” nothing new - as I am well aware of what the few that take the time to contact me are concerned about - and my responsibilities to the people I represent. I have never dozed off and fallen into unawareness on my watch, and work hard to be aware.

In conclusion: If the Courts and Election Commission find errors in the recounts, and my opponent is seated on the council, then I can accept this. But I am not ashamed of my work for and in this community for the past 20 plus years. There is much to be done and very soon we plan to aggressively address some of our cities mayor needs - and I hope to continue to be a part of solving these problems, but if is not to be - I still live here and will likely die here, and I will always care about our city and fully support those who will sit on the Council this May - and all the years to follow. I thank those who voted for and supported me this year and in the past, and I thank those who voted for my opponent too. You have my respect, and you alone spent the time to care and express your preferences. I now address the 3,011 citizens that did not vote. I understand that for various reasons it was impossible for some to vote, like my dear neighbor that was ill in a hospital and never fails to vote in every election, but to many I ask: Do you now believe that every single one vote counts? I can not believe that you do not care.....Steve Foster

Replies and comments are welcome and will be posted - with your permission