Dawidziak: Post-mortem on Coliseum vote

Michael Dawidziak is a political consultant and pollster.

'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." In the aftermath of the Nassau Coliseum bond referendum, this political wisdom attributed to Abraham Lincoln seems particularly appropriate.

But while oversimplifications might make good sound bites, they can distort the reasons for electoral results and, worse, obscure the lessons that can be learned from them.

For days after any election, political analysts engage in Monday-morning quarterbacking, which, with a dose of gallows humor, we call post-mortems. We obsessively dig into turnout numbers. We analyze who voted and who didn't. We break down results by age, gender, party affiliation, geography and a myriad of demographic factors. We want to learn what worked and what didn't, what went right and what went wrong.

The post-mortem on the Coliseum should be instructive. First of all, nobody should be surprised with the results. While surprises can happen, polling has become more and more exact. In this case, the poll numbers were spot on: My company found in a poll in June that 55 percent of respondents said they would vote no. In a Newsday/Siena Research Institute poll done a month later, 51 percent said they would vote no. The actual vote on Monday saw a 57 percent "no" vote.

The referendum left many county residents with more questions than answers. Holding it on a Monday in the middle of summer only made a normally suspicious electorate even more skeptical. The lack of details surrounding the particulars of the deal was, in the end, a tactical error -- it denied voters the comfort level they needed to say "yes." The last thing a politician can get away with these days is a simple, "Trust me."

The voters only got to say "yes" or "no" at the ballot box on Monday. But during the public debate, on the blogs and in answering polls, they said much more. The no vote was primarily a refusal by Nassau residents to further indebt themselves when they already are awash in red ink. Most clearly thought it important for the Islanders to stay and for a new Coliseum to be built -- they just didn't want to be the ones paying for it.

For too long, Long Island has earned a reputation as the "land of no," where it is extremely difficult to get building projects off the ground. The irony here is that, with this vote, politicians asked Nassau residents to invest in the county even though they themselves have too often prevented private businesses from doing just that. Relevant to this case (but hardly the only example), the Town of Hempstead killed an earlier, privately funded plan to rebuild the Coliseum and develop the area around it.

The county can take the lessons from this vote and do better. A partnership between government, business and labor could produce a plan to keep the hockey team here, build a new venue and develop the entire 77 acres in a way that would create jobs and spur the economy.

Long Island boasts an array of experts with national reputations who could help draw up such a plan. Builders, architects, contractors, labor leaders and yes, even elected officials, need to cooperate and put together a plan that would develop the entire 77 acres but not stick the taxpayers solely with the tab. The request for proposals Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano said yesterday he will issue is a good next step.

"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." This is another bit of political wisdom from old Abe. The next time politicians ask the voters to decide an issue of this magnitude, they would do well to follow his advice.