502 replies to this topic

[aztransplant]

Took my mail-in ballot to the post office last Tuesday, utilizing the extra stamp Doug Ose's canvassers gave out.

DH took his to the drop off place the week prior.

Nice to get it done ahead of time.

[mac_convert]

I am proud to say that I am 42 years old and I have voted in every election I have been eligible to vote in since I was 18 years old. I believe wholeheartedly that we are blessed to live in a country where every vote counts and we are able to let our voices be heard at the ballot box. No matter what your affiliation, no matter what your choices, GO VOTE!!!

 

Barb J

I turned 41 last month, but I have voted in every election too.

[Stop South of 50]

Pretty much over at this point.  Even worse, looks like Measure G will pass.  Not looking forward to shelling out more in
property taxes.  Glad I'll get to look at a brand new gym and stands.  Sigh.

City of Folsom City Council
          Vote for  3
              (WITH 30 OF 57 PRECINCTS COUNTED 52.63%)
           KERRI M. HOWELL  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,078   18.97
           ANDY MORIN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,951   18.19
           STEVE MIKLOS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,781   17.14
           JENNIFER M. LANE .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,321   14.31
           ROGER D. GAYLORD III.  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,021   12.46
           SANDRA LUNCEFORD .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,583    9.76
           CHAD VANDER VEEN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,459    8.99
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        28     .17
              Over Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        21
             Under Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,116

[mac_convert]

wonderful . . . .NOT!

 

Pretty much over at this point.  Even worse, looks like Measure G will pass.  Not looking forward to shelling out more in
property taxes.  Glad I'll get to look at a brand new gym and stands.  Sigh.

City of Folsom City Council
          Vote for  3
              (WITH 30 OF 57 PRECINCTS COUNTED 52.63%)
           KERRI M. HOWELL  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,078   18.97
           ANDY MORIN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,951   18.19
           STEVE MIKLOS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,781   17.14
           JENNIFER M. LANE .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,321   14.31
           ROGER D. GAYLORD III.  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,021   12.46
           SANDRA LUNCEFORD .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,583    9.76
           CHAD VANDER VEEN .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,459    8.99
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        28     .17
              Over Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        21
             Under Votes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,116

[Rich_T]

What a weird system - three candidates elected, all of whom received less than 1/5 of the votes each.  But since voters could pick up to three, I guess the way to think about it is to multiply each person's percentage by 3.  But even then, only slightly more than 50% voted for each of the incumbents.  Hardly the mandate that they will pretend it is.  In other words, the incumbents as a slate won 55 to 45 over those who would not come together as a slate.   One also wonders, as usual, whether one or two challengers would have fared better than splitting the vote across four challengers, which favors the incumbents.

 

Will it be business as usual?  Probably.  I would like to think that there is more awareness of the ruling clique this time around.  Maybe it will end up shedding some light on nefarious dealings regarding S50 water etc.  Meanwhile, I can almost hear the bulldozers clearing out the future sprawl against which Ernie Sheldon warned.

 

As for Measure G, it is a vote against fiscal responsibility, since school upkeep is now funded by bonds, not a budget.  We'll wait and see where the money goes, and luckily we have a place (here on these forum threads) to keep track of what happens, to see if promises are kept.

 

Folsom politics are predictable, like a dynasty.  I feel like a serf, and not someone who has public servants.

[camay2327]

What a weird system - three candidates elected, all of whom received less than 1/5 of the votes each.  But since voters could pick up to three, I guess the way to think about it is to multiply each person's percentage by 3.  But even then, only slightly more than 50% voted for each of the incumbents.  Hardly the mandate that they will pretend it is.  In other words, the incumbents as a slate won 55 to 45 over those who would not come together as a slate.   One also wonders, as usual, whether one or two challengers would have fared better than splitting the vote across four challengers, which favors the incumbents.

 

Will it be business as usual?  Probably.  I would like to think that there is more awareness of the ruling clique this time around.  Maybe it will end up shedding some light on nefarious dealings regarding S50 water etc.  Meanwhile, I can almost hear the bulldozers clearing out the future sprawl against which Ernie Sheldon warned.

 

As for Measure G, it is a vote against fiscal responsibility, since school upkeep is now funded by bonds, not a budget.  We'll wait and see where the money goes, and luckily we have a place (here on these forum threads) to keep track of what happens, to see if promises are kept.

 

Folsom politics are predictable, like a dynasty.  I feel like a serf, and not someone who has public servants.

 

Did you see the 3,116 Under votes though? A lot of people only voted for one or two instead of three.

Maybe that theory backfired??

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

 

Did you see the 3,116 Under votes though? A lot of people only voted for one or two instead of three.

Maybe that theory backfired??

 

I don't understand the undervote strategy.

[camay2327]

 

I don't understand the undervote strategy.

 

Well I thought it was a pretty good idea to just vote for the one or two people you really wanted to win and

not give the extra vote to anyone. I think that gives the people you vote for a better chance to win, because

no one is getting the extra vote/votes.

[Judge Smails]

If you go to the Bizpac website you get a good look at Folsom's old boy/girl club. Morin, Howell, Miklos, Backstage Starsky, Stanley, and Holderness. Jokes on us. It really is their town and they just tolerate us. Bizpac barely makes an effort to put pictures of Folsom on the website. It's mostly stock photos you get off the internet. Howell should be on her second pack of cigarettes and third bottle wine celebrating at UnWined right now. What a mess.

[mac_convert]

I hate election time because most of the people/issues I vote for don't win.

What a weird system - three candidates elected, all of whom received less than 1/5 of the votes each.  But since voters could pick up to three, I guess the way to think about it is to multiply each person's percentage by 3.  But even then, only slightly more than 50% voted for each of the incumbents.  Hardly the mandate that they will pretend it is.  In other words, the incumbents as a slate won 55 to 45 over those who would not come together as a slate.   One also wonders, as usual, whether one or two challengers would have fared better than splitting the vote across four challengers, which favors the incumbents.

 

Will it be business as usual?  Probably.  I would like to think that there is more awareness of the ruling clique this time around.  Maybe it will end up shedding some light on nefarious dealings regarding S50 water etc.  Meanwhile, I can almost hear the bulldozers clearing out the future sprawl against which Ernie Sheldon warned.

 

As for Measure G, it is a vote against fiscal responsibility, since school upkeep is now funded by bonds, not a budget.  We'll wait and see where the money goes, and luckily we have a place (here on these forum threads) to keep track of what happens, to see if promises are kept.

 

Folsom politics are predictable, like a dynasty.  I feel like a serf, and not someone who has public servants.

[Barb J]

Don't count it out yet!  Those votes were counted at 12:48 PM and the website has not been updated since then!  I think those are likely absentee ballots which are probably older voters who would vote for incumbents anyway.  I'm not giving up until the precincts have been counted!  

 

Barb J

[HappyDaisy]

Don't count it out yet!  Those votes were counted at 12:48 PM and the website has not been updated since then!  I think those are likely absentee ballots which are probably older voters who would vote for incumbents anyway.  I'm not giving up until the precincts have been counted!  

 

Barb J

 

From your mouth to God's (or insert other higher power here) ears!

[camay2327]

Sacramento Co. Folsom City Council (3) Last Updated: 11/04/2014 at 10:59 PM

Kerri Howell

4,104 votes

18%

Andy Morin

3,957 votes

18%

Steve Miklos

3,755 votes

17%

Jennifer Lane

3,237 votes

14%

Roger Gaylord, III

3,125 votes

14%

Sandra Lunceford

2,205 votes

10%

Chad Vander Veen

2,102 votes

9%

Precincts Reporting: 43 out of 57 (75%)

 

[Redone]

Lot's of votes for 4 candidates.   If they were divided by 3 instead of 4 the end result might have been different.

 

6800 undervotes seems  like a lot ,but many of the other elections also had high % of undervotes.  No telling what to make of that.

[Rich_T]

So the incumbents won 52% to 48% [edited after final count].  Not the rousing support that they would have us imagine.  All the big signs and name recognition and incumbent momentum, and yet they only pulled out a narrow victory.  I think that does say something important.

 

Again, I have to wonder whether the impact of a challenger slate would have turned that narrow margin around, especially if 3 instead of 4 challengers were running.  Too bad we weren't able to find out.

 

On a side note, I find it somehow amusing that Miklos came in third.

 

 

As for Measure G... bonds rarely lose, for two reasons:  (1) renters vote for them (and Folsom has many renters now); (2) many voters are not critical thinkers about things that sound good.  Bonds have become a way-too-easy method for administrators to fund things, as opposed to using the general budget responsibly.  Bonds are an admission of managerial failure (unless they are targeted for a brand new project that goes above and beyond normal operations).  In FCUSD's case, money was prioritized for a new administration building, and so they needed a bond to make up for it.  Also, for new neighborhoods, developers should be tapped to pay for schools from the get-go, such that there aren't any gaps (missing bleachers at Vista del Lago, etc).

 

Instead, the only result is that the entrenched administrators will sit in their new building and celebrate.  I wonder when the next school bond will be shoved at us?  I predict in five years, when money is somehow tight once again.