67 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

Infatuation with Kerri Howell. Period.

Nice to see you back on here! How about them Badgers!

[Robert Giacometti]

The totals were strictly from precincts only, Sac County still has to count all the absentee ballots. Believe they had more absentee in this election than ever before. Over 120k in Sac County alone. How many from Folsom, we'll see but I bet it's quite high.

I thought these numbers included some absentee ballots? I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of people voting in Folsom by absentee ballotts to be above 25%. It will be interesting to see the final numbers.

[Robert Giacometti]

No such a thing. If I wanted to give one vote to Andy and none to anyone else, he would have a one vote edge.
Get enough people to that and a new person could get voted in.

Say that 1,000 people vote only for a new person running and the same 1,000 people give no votes to the two incumbents,
the new person is 1,000 votes ahead.

This highlights one of the problems with open elections, it encourages undervoting. Undervoting distorts a communities true feelings regarding candidates.

I suspect if we had a system where there were run off elections, where Andy was facing one candidate and each incumbant was facing another challenger, you would cast 3 votes because these 2 other votes wouldn't hurt Andys chances and possibly might vote against one of the incumbants.

With open elections like we have MANY people only cast one vote, because they know a second vote might be the vote that beats their favorite candidate by one vote. Having open elections isn't the best way to elect our council and needs to change.

[supermom]

Sorry Robert, I disagree with you on your premise of a fair vote. Lots of things can happen or light can be shed-where before there may have been shadows- when it comes to incumbents.

This is a basic idea I have for local political votes.

A person in 1st chair has the most amount of tenure in office. They get one vote to use on city issues during council meetings. They also are responsible for the city secretary, web page and communicating with the city manager, directly. They are the first stop to accessing the city attorney or city clerks offices for legal reasons or for businesses petitions for development. They may not be reelected if they have more than 12 years combined or more than 5 years in first chair in city public service as a council member.

2nd chair, as second in tenure, gets 2 votes in city council meetings. They have less direct access to developememts or the city managers office directly, however, they are the last person in the tenure list who was directly voted in for an office with elect a bil ity. They may only be re elected once and for no more than 7 years (total) as a city public service personnel or as a council member. Then they must move up or an alternate may take their place from a list of prequalified persons. (2 positions)

3rd chair gets 2 votes and a swing vote during tie offs (ex, someone abstains). 3rd chair is responsible for the city PR,parks and rec projects and- city transportation policies, implementation and maintenance. They have the shortest amount of tenure in office and must be mentored by first or second chair. This office is elected every two years and the incumbent may not serve more than 2 terms in this position.

4th chair is the newest member, and has no tenure. They have no ties to prior decisions on city council. They may not be reelected to this chair. They must move up or out. They must be mentored by a council member from 1st or 2nd chair. They may not have ANY prior positions in public service that required a majority vote to allow service approved by any public offices. They may not vote for approval of developments, contract bids, or city policy issues. They may vote for items such as city enrichment recognition, employee disciplinary action reviews, and any public safety (personnel) policies that involve city employees and unions. They may opt out of pay status and therefore, not be subject later to a tenureship restriction for any one term in any one "allowed" reelection.

A city recall of incumbents is not allowed. Instead, after sufficient "validated" signatures by local residents has been accounted for: That person shall be placed on probation and lose half their voting power for the duration of their term. Once on probation they may not be reelected to any city public office ever again.

[Robert Giacometti]

Who is being recalled and why? Would love more info regarding this issue!

Barb

Sorry, I didn't intend to avoid answering your question. There is a group exploring a recall and different scenarios to pursue. We can't recall anyone who just won reelection until 6 months after the election. We are anticipating some reports to be issued and these could be part of the process.

Right at the moment all I can say for sure is that there is a group working on the strategy of getting it started. We have intentionally kept this group small while working out the details of our plan. We are getting many calls with offers to help, which is very encouraging.

I will start another thread about this soon.

[Robert Giacometti]

What do you mean they didn't get a majority?
Remember, every one was allowed to vote for 3, so if you assume (and I think it is a fair assumption) that most if not all voted for 3, then the total number of votes actually adds up to 300%. So if you take the total number of votes for all candidates, then divide by 3, you should get the number of people that voted. The take the number the incumbents got and divide by the number of voters, and you see that the incumbents were all over 50%.

so total votes cast = 37331/3 = 12444 voters

lowest incumbent got 7244 divided by 12444 voters = 58%

How is that not a majority?

Yes, some people may have not placed 3 votes, but I bet most did, so even though Kerri may have had less than 58%, I bet she still had >50%

Bill there isn't any need to speculate on the numbers when you can get the exact number from the SAC COUNTY Registrars.

The total amount of votes cast and counted so far were 53,859. Divide this number by 3 and you get 17,949 that is how many voters have been counted so far. Divide that number by 2 and you get 8975 and that number is the current number that repersents 50% of all voters, so far.

There were 16,480 UNDERVOTES! This is a HUGE Number! Regardless of ones support of what Candidate, this number has to be troubling to anyone who wants our elected officials to reflect the beliefs of the majority of its citizens.

These numbers will change and some may go over the 50% threshold when its all said and done. But its a blantant misrepresentation to claim today that a majority of voters have voted for the incumbants.

[Robert Giacometti]

Infatuation with Kerri Howell. Period.

OOPs, I hit +1 by mistake.

Camay has been a long time loyal supporter of Kerri and I respect his right to do so. He has been honest and upfront about this with all of us. I admire those who don't hide their beliefs, while trying to portray themselve as something else.

Can a MOD remove my +1 vote

[camay2327]

OOPs, I hit +1 by mistake.

Camay has been a long time loyal supporter of Kerri and I respect his right to do so. He has been honest and upfront about this with all of us. I admire those who don't hide their beliefs, while trying to portray themselve as something else.

Can a MOD remove my +1 vote

Robert, thanks.

[JRudi]

OOPs, I hit +1 by mistake.

Camay has been a long time loyal supporter of Kerri and I respect his right to do so. He has been honest and upfront about this with all of us. I admire those who don't hide their beliefs, while trying to portray themselve as something else.

Can a MOD remove my +1 vote

I would like to be able to agree with you on this, but Camay did not show us the same respect when we expressed our opinions on this Forum about Ms. Howell. He resorted to criticism and personal attacks of us, and even used his authority as Moderator to censor me.

I agree with you far more times than not, but this is one of those instances when I disagree. Sorry.

[old soldier]

I would like to be able to agree with you on this, but Camay did not show us the same respect when we expressed our opinions on this Forum about Ms. Howell. He resorted to criticism and personal attacks of us, and even used his authority as Moderator to censor me.

I agree with you far more times than not, but this is one of those instances when I disagree. Sorry.

I gotta say a good scandle tops any loyalty to a politician in fact a proven scandle usually causes folks opinion to change. with that said the story about this here accident, police chief resignations, love triangles had the makings but it seems the whole thing was a made up story probably made up to influence the election.

old Jrudi in my mind has lost a bit of credibility with the old soldier

[camay2327]

I would like to be able to agree with you on this, but Camay did not show us the same respect when we expressed our opinions on this Forum about Ms. Howell. He resorted to criticism and personal attacks of us, and even used his authority as Moderator to censor me.

I agree with you far more times than not, but this is one of those instances when I disagree. Sorry.

I am one of many moderators on here and you do not know that I deleted any of your items.

[JRudi]

I gotta say a good scandle tops any loyalty to a politician in fact a proven scandle usually causes folks opinion to change. with that said the story about this here accident, police chief resignations, love triangles had the makings but it seems the whole thing was a made up story probably made up to influence the election.

old Jrudi in my mind has lost a bit of credibility with the old soldier

Old Soldier: You have somehow arrived at the conclusion that just because Ms. Howell was re-elected that the information I posted on this Forum about her wasn't true? Can you explain your reasoning?

[JRudi]

I gotta say a good scandle tops any loyalty to a politician in fact a proven scandle usually causes folks opinion to change. with that said the story about this here accident, police chief resignations, love triangles had the makings but it seems the whole thing was a made up story probably made up to influence the election.

old Jrudi in my mind has lost a bit of credibility with the old soldier

By the way, I don't believe I posted anything on this forum about the a love triangle involving Ms. Howell. Also, concerning the Police Chief, I indicated that it was recently revealed that he had received pay raises the last three consecutive fiscal years while the salaries of all city employees were frozen. This can be verified just by checking the salary schedules included as appendices to the last three city budgets. This is fact! And speaking of facts, the next time you think about challenging someone's credibility please check yours.

[old soldier]

Old Soldier: You have somehow arrived at the conclusion that just because Ms. Howell was re-elected that the information I posted on this Forum about her wasn't true? Can you explain your reasoning?

its like this, if I was a citizen who had information about a council person that a lot of folks might think was a reason not to elect that person I would have laid out the facts prior to the old election so folks could have their say at the ballot box...the fact the trigger wasn't pulled to me suggesed that the old gun might have not been loaded.

old soldier is right about things most of the time, sort of like a profit and I would invite other folks to comment on the old soldiers razor sharp analysis of this situation

[JRudi]

its like this, if I was a citizen who had information about a council person that a lot of folks might think was a reason not to elect that person I would have laid out the facts prior to the old election so folks could have their say at the ballot box...the fact the trigger wasn't pulled to me suggesed that the old gun might have not been loaded.

old soldier is right about things most of the time, sort of like a profit and I would invite other folks to comment on the old soldiers razor sharp analysis of this situation

It was practically a given going into this election that the incumbants were going to be re-elected. Many people recognized this and indicated so on this forum weeks before the election even took place. Mike Kozlowski is well-known and respected in the high school and youth sports circles in this town, and even had a few bucks behind him. But, even those associations weren't good enough. The last time I can recall an incumbant losing a city council election in this town was in the mid-1990's when Sarah Myers lost to the Jack Kipp/Chamber of Commerce political machine (their candidate was the now infamous Reggie Drew).