Big thanks to Mike Z for finding me this video. (FF: 14:00) It lays out why we need to get rid of the 50% councilor race approval. The facts are on our side. But will the current council look at them, or brush them aside to save the integrity of a former city councilor who had the ethics of a street rat. (I could write a book about the vindictive nature of the former councilor who implemented this insane rule.) So do you do the right thing and change this back, or will you continue to defend a councilor who didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. We know what will happen. Power is cancerous, and if you continue to defend this stupid rule, you contribute to the cancer of local government. Do the right thing for once. You may not get accolades and flower bouquets, but you will feel good. KILL THIS RULE!
*Also, this former councilor has been on a VINDICTIVE tour after he left the council. Trying to get former political foes fired from their jobs on trumped up charges. I will say this, if I ever see this person in Sioux Falls, they best prepare themselves for a long convo.
So a foot soldier sends this ring camera video to me today, with the title ‘SF WTF?’ Yeah, not sure why a teenager dressed as the green lantern is walking around your yard with a selfie stick. Maybe he is looking for enriched uranium?
UPDATE II: I decided to see if the 50% rule has even been used since it was implemented in 2017. It has ONLY applied ONE time, and that was in 2024 and the runoff between Thomason and Deffenbaugh, and the runoff results were the same as the general election with Thomason the victor. There have been 4 elections since the rule was implemented and has only been triggered one time! Simply not needed. In 2018, there was a runoff between DeBoer and Soehl, but the runoff would have occurred even with the old rule of 34% in place because neither Zach or Curt got over 27% of the vote (there was 5 candidates in the initial race). It seems silly to defend a rule that has never been applied, was implemented because of political revenge, keeps grassroots candidates on the sidelines, costs us extra in elections and has NO political or constituent advantages to stand on. The councilors that VOTE against changing it back really need to get their heads examined. This is an easy one. Something wasn’t broken, change it back.
UPDATE: When this was introduced a few years ago by councilor Starr, councilor Merkouris told fellow councilors keeping the 50% rule would keep out the ‘fringe candidates’. In other words grassroots candidates with little money would’nt be able to take on the money machine. This is why Spellerberg and Sigette had no challengers. Peeps are tired of the money game. I also find this rule ironic, since if applied to the last presidential election there would have had to been a runoff between Harris and Trump (he received 49.8% of the popular vote.)
——————
I will say, I have been following council since Hansen was in office. I have seen some pretty weird meetings, but tonight, was sickening.
First, the public input. I think that most of them need a brain scan to see if they have dementia, secondly, they were saying crap that was counter culture to what really happens. Here is a fine example, so there is this guy that shows up to the council meetings that thinks he is philosopher, but he is mostly just a blabber, and he says to the ordinance about changing the plurality to council races BACK TO 35% that it seemed ‘politically motivated’. Hey, it got changed because of POLITICAL MOTIVES and that is why we need to change it back, so good catch, even if you don’t know what you are talking about. The change came in 2017 when the council was split and Mayor Huether broke the tie to pass this very idiotic change.
Let’s move onto the city council, they also took the side of ‘political motivation’ as to why not to change it back. Let me inform you. Councilor Rex Rolfing was vindictive, he was mean, and didn’t make any policy changes unless he was punishing his political enemies, and the move by him was purely political because of his disdain for councilor Stehly. The main reason why this should be eliminated was it wasn’t needed to begin with. If 7 people are running for a council seat and the leading candidate gets 35% of the vote, that’s good enough for me (the remaining 6 candidates would get an average of 11% of the vote, which is a THIRD of what the winner would receive.) It seems the council likes to enrich the pockets of local campaign electioneers, so the longer they can draw this out the better. The problem; You are so misinformed it is almost criminal.
It is shocking to me that the majority of the council has NO CLUE about good governance. Just protecting their behinds. In a democratic republic you are elected to represent us, not to preserve some rule that was concocted to punish political foes. Do your research BEFORE the second reading, and you will see that changing a rule that was in place for 20 years back to it’s an original intent is the best way to resolve this, and put the Rex Rolfing rule to rest once and for all.
The proposed ordinance would reduce the percentage necessary to win a city council race from more than 50 percent to 35 percent as long as the candidate receives the most votes. If the candidate with the most votes is unable to secure at least 35 percent of the vote, the top two candidates with the most votes would go to a runoff. This proposed ordinance would only impact city council elections.
I think it is turning it back to where it was originally before Rex Rolfing decided to mess with it. Not sure if the entire council supports the change since the two sponsors are the only two councilors who support a November election date. We will see.
See Paul, I don’t have all bad feelings for yah, I’m starting this post out with one of my favorite songs from one of my favorite bands!
So lately many folks across the political spectrum in Sux have been reaching out to me. Corruption? Open Government? Poops new exercise routine? Close. They have been asking me about MisTaken’s political future and why he is bailing. I told someone, flat out, “Because he can’t run.” I will have more on that soon. But what has been resonating with all these folks is a weird question; ‘Why is Paul so angry?’ First off, I don’t know the guy from Adam, so I don’t do a lot of mental health checks on him, though I do know he likes the Quacktorpractor, maybe ask him? But after the 4th or 5th person called me about this last week, I was like, Gum Dummit! I need to figure this out. So here it is;
I think Paul has been reflecting on the past 7 years and realizing, that in fact, he accomplished nothing except weakening our bond rating, creating millions in additional operating expenses for Rec NO ONE asked for, not stopping the Bunker Ramp, and the list goes on. I would be angry to, very angry. I’m actually surprised he hasn’t been eating broken glass at the meetings (I think they make Werther flavored glass).
l3wis 