67 replies to this topic

[rlsliger]

CORRECTION, the incumbants got the MOST votes NOT a majority! I wondered how long it would be until you came on here trying to spin things. Stick to facts!

If 50% plus 1 in the community decides that they want to keep these 4 members on the council, then I'll spend more time with my family, including my sweetie and spend more time fishing. I'm OK with a majority NOT agreeing with me, but I'm NOT Ok with our current rigged system that is contributing to the demise of our communuity, being controlled by a few!

The majority of the votes that were cast were cast for the incumbents. How is that not a fact?

If I understand it correctly, the 3 with the most votes win. How is that rigged?

[tessieca]

The way I see it is that the majority of people in Folsom are happy with Folsom. It is a clean, safe, town with higher property values than most towns in the region, has more amenities than most communities and more coming. This majority sees no compelling reason to vote the incumbents out.

Ditto that, Steve. I tried to say that on an earlier pre-race topic. Not many people are unhappy with the way things are going. A good percentage of those who are just happen to be posters on this forum.

one way to look at the new folks would be to say they had no experience, line being on planning commission...do you think the current council will reach out say to kowalski and ask him to be on a commission to add experience to his old resume.

Ha ha!! It would be highly unusual for people to appoint someone who opposed them for many months. The "new" councilmembers get to appoint to the various commissions. Why would they want to name someone who's been publicly negative about them?

[Robert Giacometti]

The majority of the votes that were cast were cast for the incumbents. How is that not a fact?

If I understand it correctly, the 3 with the most votes win. How is that rigged?

Sorry, I meant to say Voters instead of votes. When you compare the number of voters who voted to the number of Votes the incumbants received, they aren't getting a majority of the voters to vote for them. When the final numbers are released we can compare these numbers.

IMO, its a rigged system because challengers don't have the same access to information, can't go back to land Owners who have beneffitted from land use votes by the incumbants expecting suppport and open elections historically favor incumbants. Given all the advantages the Incumbants have and having open elections pretty much ensures the incumbants get reelected.

IMO, this is rigged, but you are entitled to your own opinion.

[Revolutionist]

Ditto that, Steve. I tried to say that on an earlier pre-race topic. Not many people are unhappy with the way things are going. A good percentage of those who are just happen to be posters on this forum.

Which makes it a bit tougher on us challengers
Hey! things are mostly working! Let me in!



Just wanted to say thank you to all who voted and supported me in yesterday's election
I didn't win a seat. but some good things happened that pave a way for next time around... watch out Tess!
Things are mostly working. Let me in. Again!

[tessieca]

When you compare the number of voters who voted to the number of Votes the incumbants received, they aren't getting a majority of the voters to vote for them. When the final numbers are released we can compare these numbers.

If you look at the precinct breakdown, the incumbents went 1, 2, and 3 in nearly all of them. Koz slipped into the top 3 in a couple. So, they won a majority of neighborhoods anyway.

[Robert Giacometti]

Here are the final results with 100 % of precincts. From the KCRA website

Miklos 8269
Morin 7508
Howell 7244
Kozlowski 5838 (great showing, 2012 maybe?)
Munoz 3110 (never would've guessed he'd get this many)
Woodward 3034 (hope he runs again in a couple of years)
Badiga 2328 (surprised she didn't get more votes)

There you have it, the voters have spoken and we'll have more of the same....they bucked the trend of getting incumbents out.

There are still many uncounted ballots to be added to the final totals, so these numbers above will go up.

Below are the final numbers for the 2006 election.

Miklos 12,348
Morin 11,429
Howell 9,773

I'm assuming there are more voters here in 2010, than 2006. I'll be curious to see what everyones final numbers are and that will be a key indication to me on how the Community really feels about the job the incumbants are doing.

[Robert Giacometti]

Ditto that, Steve. I tried to say that on an earlier pre-race topic. Not many people are unhappy with the way things are going. A good percentage of those who are just happen to be posters on this forum.

If one assumes that if one is happy the way things are going, they will vote for the incumbants, then a simple but accurrate way to measure your claim that not many people are unhappy about things are going , would be to simply add up all the votes of the challengers and all the undervotes and compare that total to the total of all the incumbants received.

Whatever total is higher would tell all of us wether the community is happier or not at the way things are going. Since we don't have an open election system, I don't know of any other way to accurrately determine this.

We need to change our system to get a better reflection of the collective desires of the residents of who represents us on the Council.

[tessieca]

Not mathematically accurate, because if the challengers were not in the race then the votes would likely have gone to incumbents with the usual percentage of undervotes. You might differ in opinion, but no amount of calculation will get you to that answer.

If you were to take the total number of votes and undervotes, divide by 3 seats, then see if anyone got 50% of that number, you might get to where you're going. I think based on last count that Steve is just short of the 50%.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

If one assumes that if one is happy the way things are going, they will vote for the incumbants, then a simple but accurrate way to measure your claim that not many people are unhappy about things are going , would be to simply add up all the votes of the challengers and all the undervotes and compare that total to the total of all the incumbants received.

Whatever total is higher would tell all of us wether the community is happier or not at the way things are going. Since we don't have an open election system, I don't know of any other way to accurrately determine this.

We need to change our system to get a better reflection of the collective desires of the residents of who represents us on the Council.

Is there a way to take back my "+1" here -- I clicked it by accident.

[Robert Giacometti]

Is there a way to take back my "+1" here -- I clicked it by accident.

If I have to reset something somebody let me know how to do this for Deb B?

[That Guy]

I voted for the incumbants and I will explain why.

Folsom, as well as much of the local area (and state), has had to deal with extremely tough fiscal consitions due to falling property taxes as well as theh state taking money from local governements. I believe the current Council has been very consciscious in trying to deal with this budgetary issue in an equitable manner that maintains as well as possible all of our city services and amenities. It is not easy, there are those who would have it done a different way, but that is my preference. we are not out of the woods, and despite what I am sure are good intentions from the other candidates, I think the experinece is important as the city tries to muster through unitl things turn around. My decision was not based on ignorance, or stupidity.

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

I voted for the incumbants and I will explain why.

Folsom, as well as much of the local area (and state), has had to deal with extremely tough fiscal consitions due to falling property taxes as well as theh state taking money from local governements. I believe the current Council has been very consciscious in trying to deal with this budgetary issue in an equitable manner that maintains as well as possible all of our city services and amenities. It is not easy, there are those who would have it done a different way, but that is my preference. we are not out of the woods, and despite what I am sure are good intentions from the other candidates, I think the experinece is important as the city tries to muster through unitl things turn around. My decision was not based on ignorance, or stupidity.

People have a variety of reasons for voting how they do. Robert, your assumptions about those reasons may be way off and no one is obligated to come to this forum to defend themselves to you. Your posts smack of insult when people do not agree with you.

[LWoodward]

Hey all,
Just wanted to say that I am happy with my campaign, I did not "win", however, it was a great experience and I did learn a lot. I can't complain about the outcome, I am happy with the amount that I spent, and I am happy to stand up for what I believe in.
I noticed some of the posts saying that people don't think the council would allow Mike or anyone that ran against them could get appointed to any committee to strengthen their resume; however do believe they would be open allowing anyone that wanted to serve on a commission or committee to do so, even with differences. I may have a difference of opinion compared to the incumbents that got re-elected, but we are all interested in the best for Folsom. I plan on seeing how I can get involved and plan to continue to learn more. Best of luck to the re-elected over the next four years, and good luck to any challengers that may run again in the future.

[irish1]

Hey all,
Just wanted to say that I am happy with my campaign, I did not "win", however, it was a great experience and I did learn a lot. I can't complain about the outcome, I am happy with the amount that I spent, and I am happy to stand up for what I believe in.
I noticed some of the posts saying that people don't think the council would allow Mike or anyone that ran against them could get appointed to any committee to strengthen their resume; however do believe they would be open allowing anyone that wanted to serve on a commission or committee to do so, even with differences. I may have a difference of opinion compared to the incumbents that got re-elected, but we are all interested in the best for Folsom. I plan on seeing how I can get involved and plan to continue to learn more. Best of luck to the re-elected over the next four years, and good luck to any challengers that may run again in the future.

A tip of the hat, and good luck to you...!!!!

[Robert Giacometti]

Not mathematically accurate, because if the challengers were not in the race then the votes would likely have gone to incumbents with the usual percentage of undervotes. You might differ in opinion, but no amount of calculation will get you to that answer.

If you were to take the total number of votes and undervotes, divide by 3 seats, then see if anyone got 50% of that number, you might get to where you're going. I think based on last count that Steve is just short of the 50%.

The challengers are in the race and the voters either voted for them or the incumbants or didn't vote. I'm assuming people who choose to vote, vote for people they suppport or are happy with. On the flip side, not voting for someone indicates you aren't happy with them or the way things are going.

How else can this be intrepreted?

The simplest way to see if one got 50% of the votes from voters who voted is to take the number of voters who voted in the election and divide by 2. The number of seats has nothing to do with getting 50% of all the voters to vote for you.

I'm thinking if we changed the system, there wouldn't be as many undervotes, therefore having a better reflection of the feelings of the residents. Again, who would be opossed to having this?