brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
If you read the letter, she complains about the small type. Of course there is small type. There is more information in the November election. This is the important part of the letter, ?I did get a call from the county explaining that the wording is smaller because more information is now on the ballot and so much more is there because the elections have been moved forward.? It is amazing how you, Brewster, missed this most important statement.

I did not miss it, but I find it least important. It's like blaming traffic jams on the idea of the workday. If there is really a problem, the ways of solving it involving graphics are far more logical than moving elections.

Yvonne wrote:
If you read the letter, she complains about the small type. Of course there is small type. There is more information in the November election. This is the important part of the letter, ?I did get a call from the county explaining that the wording is smaller because more information is now on the ballot and so much more is there because the elections have been moved forward.? It is amazing how you, Brewster, missed this most important statement.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Woman in Hoboken complains about the ballot. Hoboken changed the ballot to November.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... _more_legible_letter.html

Your talent for dragging in unrelated anecdotes as proof of your positions is limitless. The letter writer's complaint is about overlong plebiscite descriptions, not the date of the election. The writer could not be bothered to read the ballot she received in the mail and struggled to read the small type on the ballot. This could easily be solved by having large type copies of the text available at the polls, even pinned inside the booth.

Next crazy reason to oppose this?

Yvonne wrote:
Woman in Hoboken complains about the ballot. Hoboken changed the ballot to November.

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... _more_legible_letter.html

m1abrams wrote:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... ponents_to_moving_je.html

This is the 3rd independent editorial supporting moving the election and say that allies of the former administration want to regain power. The political machine is stronger in May and that is why they don't want higher turnout in November. Allies of the previous administration, including several posters on this forum have been exposed. Perhaps there is a conspiracy that the JJ and the SL are in Fulop's pocket? The fact is, they say that good government groups support this measure. The only reason why there is opposition including large opposition from people here is because they want to take down the current administration and bring back the old ways of doing things which really brought Jersey City down.

shakatah wrote:
You haven't been reading Dolomiti. I have absolutely no problem if only 10 people turn out to an election that every eligible citizen can participate in and 6 JC residents determine who the next mayor is because that is a majority of the voters in that election and everyone had the opportunity to participate. However, if only 2 of the 10 people voted for a candidate and he wins anyway. BIG PROBLEM!!! understand?

My issue is that voters should do everything in their power to force elected officials to engage them, even if they are only doing it to get votes. As a politician, what would you do if all of a sudden you did not need 50%+1 of votes anymore but instead could win with 19% or even less of the votes?

Think carefully about what you wish for because once JC gets it the city is stuck with that decision for a very long time if not forever.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

shakatah wrote:
And there is no way that you get to 50%+1 of the electoral votes after getting only 19% of the popular vote without the country imploding in chaos because that would be a stolen election.

So your argument boils down to "it could happen but I don't like it". Neither did the South btw, when Lincoln won with 39.65%. But we're talking about what is possible, not what you like.

But speaking of stolen elections and things we would not like, do you realize what happens if a presidential election ends up with no one getting 50% of the EC? It goes to the House, where every STATE gets 1 vote. That's right, Wyoming with 600k people gets the same vote as California with 39M. How's THAT for democracy! The GOP would adore it, they've got way more sparsely populated states.

Life is like dinner at a highway rest stop: sometimes all you have is the lesser of 2 evils.

Yvonne wrote:
One of the speakers made a powerful argument against changing the election to November. He spoke before the council and said, "Everyone of you who are now elected as council would not be there if the election was November 2013. The HCDO would have supported Healy who is part of the HDCO and his slate." That statement made sense, the HDCO do not bother with May elections but if they are pushing their own candidates in November then it takes very little to add a HDCO mayor/council to the ticket.

Dolomiti wrote:
[quote]


Fortunately, if the citizens of Jersey City want to keep runoffs, all they have to do is vote for it. Of course, if that happens to be an election with a low turnout, and more than 50% vote to eliminate runoffs, it seems like you should be willing to accept the decision of the majority. No...?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

shakatah wrote:
And there is no way that you get to 50%+1 of the electoral votes after getting only 19% of the popular vote without the country imploding in chaos because that would be a stolen election.

So your argument boils down to "it could happen but I don't like it". Neither did the South btw, when Lincoln won with 39.65%. But we're talking about what is possible, not what you like.

But speaking of stolen elections and things we would not like, do you realize what happens if a presidential election ends up with no one getting 50% of the EC? It goes to the House, where every STATE gets 1 vote. That's right, Wyoming with 600k people gets the same vote as California with 39M. How's THAT for democracy! The GOP would adore it, they've got way more sparsely populated states.

Life is like dinner at a highway rest stop: sometimes all you have is the lesser of 2 evils.

shakatah wrote:
Brewster, I'll say this just once more for clarity. 50%+1 of electoral votes are required, not one vote less. And there is no way that you get to 50%+1 of the electoral votes after getting only 19% of the popular vote without the country imploding in chaos because that would be a stolen election.

shakatah wrote:
And there is no way that you get to 50%+1 of the electoral votes after getting only 19% of the popular vote without the country imploding in chaos because that would be a stolen election.

brewster wrote:
shakatah: you said "if Bill Clinton only got 19% of the popular or electoral vote in that election , would he have been elected president?"

The answer to the "popular" question is still YES. Had you actually read my post, I noted the EC takes 50%+1, but the popular vote is a different animal. You have chosen to ignore the entirety of what I said in order to repeat your belief (I won't grace it with the description of "argument") once again.

We have had 18 Presidents who won with less than 50% of the popular vote, the lowest being JQ Adams with 30%. Lincoln had 39.65%. Your premise that being elected by less than 50% is illegitimate is absurd. And primaries have nothing to do with it. They do not legitimize or delegitimize a candidate. The majority of states didn't even have presidential primaries until after 1968.

neverleft wrote:
Below is the JJ link that Yvonne posted it is really disgusting how Matsioudis and his new ?friends? are trying to stop this. (her post didn?t have the title or paragraph breaks..hard to read)

Fulop plan to move Jersey City elections may hit roadblock

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on November 20, 2015 at 3:49 PM, updated November 20, 2015 at 4:24 PM

JERSEY CITY ? Mayor Steve Fulop's push to move city elections to November isn't formalized yet, but there's an effort afoot to keep it from becoming a reality.

A committee of five community activists has started a petition drive aimed at using a state law to force the council to repeal the ordinance, which was expected to be adopted on Tuesday, or to call a special election asking voters if the measure should be adopted.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... r.html#incart_river_index


JJ comment: Quote:

?It is led by Bill Matsikoudis, a longtime Fulop rival who lost his job as corporation counsel when Fulop unseated Jerramiah Healy in 2013.?

Thank you for finally printing the main reason behind all of this. #sourgrapes

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=165779

But because the ordinance involves the earnings of council members, Bill Matsikoudis, the city's top attorney, determined Fulop needed to collect more than 12,000 signatures.