The protracted US presidential election, with its bombastic extravaganza and bitter discord, has long eclipsed the political landscape. Yet on November 8th, New Jersey voters also cast their decisions in two statewide referendums—an aspect far less dramatic than the headline event, perhaps, but arguably a purer example of democracy in action. After all, the pomp and circumstance of presidential politics often overshadows the true cornerstone of democracy: the seemingly mundane decisions rendered extraordinary by the fact that everyday citizens get to make them.

The first question on the ballot was that of casinos—more specifically, whether to allow two new ones to be built in the northern part of the state. Residents voted overwhelmingly against this proposal—77% to 23%–the largest-ever margin in a New Jersey referendum. In fact, in view of the dismal poll numbers, the main proponents of the plan (the group Our Turn NJ) terminated their advertising campaign over a month before election day.

This decision means that New Jersey might lose out on some economic benefits—casinos provide tax revenue and create hundreds of jobs. Yet the proposal failed to specify any quantitative benefits; for example, it didn’t mention the tax percentage that the casinos would pay, or even the explicit locations where they would be built. In addition, in a poll conducted by Our Turn NJ, the majority of residents stated that they did not believe politicians would use the money in productive ways.

The casino decision also means that Atlantic City will keep its monopoly on NJ gambling. However, Atlantic City is already suffering the effects of competition: new casinos in neighboring states have forced several of Atlantic City’s own establishments to close.

The second issue decided by NJ voters was that of how to use the funds raised from the recent 23-cent gas tax hike. Residents voted to dedicate all the proceeds (projected at over $1 billion) to transportation projects, such as roads, bridges, and mass transit. This prevents politicians from diverting the money to other areas, and provides a steady stream of revenue for a planned 8-year project to improve New Jersey’s fraying transport infrastructure.

The margin for this decision was smaller than that of the casino question, at 54% to 46%—somewhat surprisingly, since it passed in the legislature last year with only one dissenting vote. Backlash may have been due to anger over the rise in gas prices, and a (mistaken) belief that voting no might lead to a repeal of the tax.

Another source of opposition to the proposal stemmed from its more subtle stipulation allowing the state to borrow up to $12 billion for transportation projects. For this reason, lieutenant governor Kim Guadagno spoke out against the plan, warning voters that they would “unknowingly detonate a debt bomb by voting yes.” Indeed, excessive borrowing may exacerbate the state’s economic troubles, since the interest will keep adding up.

However, Ridge student Jack Lu ’19 thinks this is a reasonable price to pay, stating that “the benefits of the improved infrastructure will outweigh the costs of the borrowing.” After all, last June, New Jersey’s roads and bridges received a barely-passing D+ rating from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Funds funneled into repair and renovation projects will increase the safety and effectiveness of in-state travel.

The results of these two referendums will most likely not make much difference in the lives of Ridge students. Nevertheless, they and their implications are important to New Jersey’s future. States Jennifer Huang ’18, “Not many people care that much about these issues, but in reality it’s the small decisions that add up to decide our state’s path.”

In this divided time, many New Jerseyans—and Americans in general—have begun to lose faith in democracy. Yet referendums like these prove that the “American experiment” is still alive and well.