Jump to content



Photo

Local Elections and Recount Success!


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#41 HadAboutEnough

HadAboutEnough

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 11:55 AM

Perhaps an ex-councilperson is mathematically challenged.  I know for a fact that the numbers "calculated" for the annexation when he was in office were FAR from correct.


  • kelley and Donna like this

#42 Huston

Huston

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 35 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 11:57 AM

Perhaps an ex-councilperson is mathematically challenged.  I know for a fact that the numbers "calculated" for the annexation when he was in office were FAR from correct.

 

Is this really still a thing?

How long has it been?



#43 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 12:27 PM

Is this really still a thing?

How long has it been?

Why would it stop being a thing?


  • kelley likes this

#44 Huston

Huston

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 35 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 01:50 PM

This forum tells people all the time, it's over and time to move on. I don't understand why this wouldn't be any different.

 

Edit to add: Or that people are beating a dead horse.


Edited by Huston, 04 January 2016 - 01:53 PM.


#45 HadAboutEnough

HadAboutEnough

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 02:14 PM

The point is not annexation.  The point is that counting may not be a strong suit.  

But, if it makes you feel better, you can believe what you like.



#46 Huston

Huston

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 35 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 02:36 PM

If that was all your intent was, then I apologize. Though it still seems you are trying to insult someone who did something you didn't like. I'm sure he's capable of addition.



#47 HadAboutEnough

HadAboutEnough

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 03:00 PM

Thank you.  I was actually going for some sarcasm.  And I'm sure he can count as well, maybe just not as well as he could if he was unbiased.


  • kelley likes this

#48 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 03:01 PM

Brother John Perkins is having a lot of fun as a senior citizen
even while in retirement from his many dedicated years as a school teacher.
 
He is just coming off a fun stint as a Clark County Commissioner.
He had twenty years experience as a city council person,
tried a late run again in 2015,
has acted as a  state and national delegate to D conventions,
just ran for 9th District  D Chairperson,
and is fully  emersed  in the current way-fun recount gig!

 

When you think about it,

he is as fully involved, dedicated, and engaged as anyone in Clark County

in the political culture process.

 

:waving:


Edited by Savile Row, 04 January 2016 - 03:04 PM.


#49 HadAboutEnough

HadAboutEnough

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 03:22 PM

Where do I start?  He was appointed commissioner after being unable to survive the primary for the same seat.

 

Yes he was a councilperson for too long and was instrumental in crafting a laughable annexation fiscal plan during his tenure.

 

He tried to run again in 2015 when all he could claim is that he lived with "a friend" in the first district.  He certainly didn't live there the month before when he was still county commissioner of a entirely different county district.

 

Involved he is.  Whether he should be is another question.


  • kelley, snowman, Donna and 1 other like this

#50 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 06:25 PM

Breakfast Club Lawyer Fun

Jeffersonville seeks the truth.

Did Larry Wilder enter a motion today for a new at-large election to be conducted?

 

Does David Mosley feel that Josh Rodriquez  will win a recount of the recount?

 

Good lawyers practicing their trade.

 

:popcorn:


Edited by Savile Row, 04 January 2016 - 06:28 PM.


#51 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 07:54 PM

How are the lawyers being paid?? by whom??



#52 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 08:36 PM

Private "Out- of-Pocket" Money

The political parties can donate to the candidates

and help pay their expenses if they wish to do so,

to help with the fees for the very good lawyers.

 

However, in Indiana,  the candidates that file for the various recounts, maneuvers, and knowledgeable efforts,

are responsible for their own legal expenses if they file for a recount.

No tax money is utilized for the private lawyers in this regard.

 

Any other candidates

involved in the races, whom wish to oppose or support  those efforts or wishing to challenge or support results,

in their contested and recounted race, can be represented by legal council in the process.

 

They can also seek competent legal council.

They gotta pay up 'out-of-pocket' too.

The candidates can have fund raisers if they wish.

:D :popcorn:

Diligent Clark County lawyers Larry Wilder and David Mosley are hard at work.

We are watching some very neat living Clark County history!


Edited by Savile Row, 04 January 2016 - 08:54 PM.


#53 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 09:48 PM

Could your opinion come from the fact that there are no longer more Dem than Rep straight tickets. 

:shifty:

 

No.  Actually, while I am sure more people are voting for more Republicans locally, I am not so sure about what the numbers of 'straight party' votes are. Just don't know on that.  What I am saying, from observation,  the straight party vote option can play havoc on voter's who cross over in an at large race. (one example).  I feel pretty sure that if a person voted straight Republican, but, in the at large race crossed over and voted for one of the DEM candidates and then, went and tried to vote for two of the three Republican candidates, they would be angry that those two votes got voided and ONLY the Dem vote counted. 

 

The other thing I question about this option is that  to me, personally, it doesn't seem right to leave out other political parties.  It builds in a bias to DEM and REPUB candidates over GREEN or LIBERTARIAN party candidates.   I also am not exactly clear on the philosophical basis ....or argument for a 'straight party' option.  If a person wants to vote that way they certainly can do so by just marking all their favored party's candidates?  

 

Maybe I'm wrong. 



#54 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 09:52 PM

[Diligent Clark County lawyers Larry Wilder and David Mosley are hard at work.
We are watching some very neat living Clark County history!

I think Cark County already has quite a history!   Not so sure that this will add to it or not --- not positively anyway!   Seems like we are just becoming more and more the laughing stock of the State.   Good grief -- we can't even count ballots accurately!   :no:


  • Big Bopper likes this

#55 hillbilly highway

hillbilly highway

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:09 PM

Could your opinion come from the fact that there are no longer more Dem than Rep straight tickets.
:shifty:

No I wouldn't say that. My reason was the fact that if a straight democrat ballot was cast in the city election and that ballot only selected one person in the at large race and the person they selected was a democrat then regardless the other two democrats will get those votes as well but if that same ballot would have voted for one republican in the at large race then what does that mean. That is where the confusion comes in. So by removing the straight party you eliminate that problem. And yes democrats and republicans have used the straight party AT for corruption right here in Clark county. And lazy may have not been the best choice of words to use.

Edited by hillbilly highway, 04 January 2016 - 10:12 PM.


#56 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 10:15 PM

Monroe County had the same problem.

 

IMO, the solution is simple - get rid of straight party voting.

 

How can you ever interpret voter intent when they vote straight party and then choose 1 of 3 candidates of the other party?  

It's unnecessarily complicated.

 

be7v5c.jpg


  • hillbilly highway and Dougie like this

#57 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 04:41 AM

No. Actually, while I am sure more people are voting for more Republicans locally, I am not so sure about what the numbers of 'straight party' votes are. Just don't know on that. What I am saying, from observation, the straight party vote option can play havoc on voter's who cross over in an at large race. (one example). I feel pretty sure that if a person voted straight Republican, but, in the at large race crossed over and voted for one of the DEM candidates and then, went and tried to vote for two of the three Republican candidates, they would be angry that those two votes got voided and ONLY the Dem vote counted.

The other thing I question about this option is that to me, personally, it doesn't seem right to leave out other political parties. It builds in a bias to DEM and REPUB candidates over GREEN or LIBERTARIAN party candidates. I also am not exactly clear on the philosophical basis ....or argument for a 'straight party' option. If a person wants to vote that way they certainly can do so by just marking all their favored party's candidates?

Maybe I'm wrong.



You ain't.

#58 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 08:36 AM

Monroe County had the same problem.

 

IMO, the solution is simple - get rid of straight party voting.

 

How can you ever interpret voter intent when they vote straight party and then choose 1 of 3 candidates of the other party?  

It's unnecessarily complicated.

 

be7v5c.jpg

 

 

If someone votes straight party and then continues to make marks for any candidate on the ballot --- they are not very smart, in my opinion.   How hard is it anyway?   Why do we have to keep making things simpler and simpler and simpler?    You can't fix stupid.     No one should have to "guess" at what someone's intent was --- either they fill the ballot out correctly or their vote doesn't count at all.   Period.   


  • Dougie likes this

#59 Hickory Huskers

Hickory Huskers

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 266 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 08:41 AM

I don't know what the current law is on the matter, but in my opionion, the rule should be that if a voter marks the straight party box for a party, and then proceeds to vote for any candidates, only the votes for the candidates are counted and the straight party vote is invalidated.  Put a disclaimer by the straight party boxes indicating as such in order to help the voters understand.


  • javajoe and Tina like this

#60 deborah

deborah

    Tourist

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 05 January 2016 - 10:59 AM

Straight ticket isn’t a city or county issue, but a state issue.

Indiana is one of a handful of states that still has straight ticket voting.   At least two bills were introduced to eliminate the practice but supposedly, the matter went to a study committee.   If such a committee exists, I’ve been unable to find it, which doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.

 

Confusion, at least in the Jeffersonville City race was helped along with the split ticket instruction on the ballot.  

 

 “Split –Ticket Voting.  You may vote a Straight Party Ticket by marking ONE of the party choices and then voting for individual candidates of your choice, in any other party OR you may vote for individual candidates for your choice in each office.”

 

In the case of the At Large, as Hillbilly Highway pointed out, what if a voter marks only one candidate, a candidate from a different party.  (sure, maybe we should have been doing the math but for most of us, that’s not going to happen)

 

I don’t understand  (if three candidates were selected) why any would be voided, as Pesty Version 2 suggested.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users