"...consorting with or looking favorably upon politicians whose power lies partly in their tolerance of corruption brings you closer to corruption."
-Fire and Fury Inside the Trump White House - Michael Wolff
The flight of Jen Giattino, Tiffanie Fisher and Peter Cunningham into the Ruben Ramos camp is being spun by revisionist history.
The revisionism appears as (1) fake news ("election fraud is gone!") or (2) truthiness ("I never supported eliminating runoffs!")
FAKE NEWS
Multiple sources report that Giattino and Fisher are spreading fake news that VBM harvests are "not a problem anymore" and that "voter fraud is gone."
Huh? Pass me what you're smoking.
These are the VBM counts for 2017 BoE candidates.
2017 Hoboken BOE VBMS
2017 was a high-turnout election, so Peter Biancamano's 462 VBM harvest did not save him.
In 2014-- a lower-turnout election-- Biancamano's 466 VBMs got him a seat on the BoE, bumping Antonio Gray.
In 2015, a heaping VBM harvest (463- Montgomery, 564- Madigan) bumped Sheillah Dallara and Addys Velez off the School Board.
2015 Hoboken BOE VBMs
VBM harvests have been decisive in School Board elections.
Jen Giattino and Tiffanie Fisher's insistence that "election fraud is gone" provides cover and legitimacy for the vote farmers; this aids and abets the opponents of reform BoE candidates.
Moreover, this is the record of their new pal, Ruben Ramos:
- Ruben Ramos, has backed every BoE slate opposing Kids First, Reach Higher, Forward Together, Hoboken Proud- have I forgot one?
- Ramos supported Garcia's BoE career and is buddies with the "Boken to the Burbs" guy- who pimps bad news about the schools to churn the real estate market in Hoboken.
- Ruben Ramos has a lock on Fourth Ward VBMs but this past cycle, got out-smarted by the Romano campaign. Collectively, that's about 500 absentee ballots in play- not to mention street money on election day.
And DeFusco, who violated Hoboken's P2P laws in excess of $90K...
"...consorting with or looking favorably upon politicians whose power lies partly in their tolerance of corruption brings you closer to corruption."
TRUTHINESS
Not only did Jen Giattino collect signatures for the "Runoff Petition" she signed it- and that is a vote for the ballot initiative (see page 195).
Thank you to my friend on the farm, Eric Kurta, for providing GA with the 2012 Runoff Petition .pdf.
Thank you to my friend on the farm, Eric Kurta, for providing GA with the 2012 Runoff Petition .pdf.
Sorry, but this 2018 claim that "eliminating the runoff is always a bad thing" does not comport with signing a petition to propose eliminating the runoff, nor does it comport with anyone's memory of Giattino's participation in the petition drive.
The only reason that GA can think of is that it brings former proponents of eliminating runoffs into alignment with their new friends, Ruben Ramos and Mike DeFusco.
Note, the death-by a thousand cuts of Councilwoman Jabbour's instant-run-offs resolution is also furthering Ramos' agenda; kick the can so far down the road that no one can see it.
If Tiff, Jen, Peter believe VBMs and OTHER vote harvesting operations are no longer a problem, then stand up and say so and stop the bullshit quibbling about the wording. People need to know you feel that way so they can focus their energies on kicking your asses to the curb.
ReplyDeleteBy the way did they also say that pissing away money and 1/3 reduction in the “more voices that are always better” in December runoffs are also “no longer a problem”?
DeleteSigning a petition is signing to put the item on the ballot; it is not an actual vote for or against the referendum/initiative.
ReplyDeleteYes, Indie. And if she thought eliminating run-offs was a "bad thing" it is reasonable to believe she would not have signed the petition. In fact, no one collecting sigs recalls her speaking against eliminating runoffs.
Delete@indie, you are technically correct. while we're at it, why not sign a petition to include a ballot measure to legalize drunk driving? i mean, it's not an actual vote for or against the referendum/initiative, right?
Deleteyour comment is the equivalent of republicans insisting trump absolutely DID NOT say shithole (cuz, ya know, he may have said shithouse...)
Why do you presume that? Some folks just want to give people an opportunity to vote on something. Personally, I agree with you - you won't see my signature on that petition - but, I've also collected signatures for many a petition and I can attest that people have more than one reason for signing.
DeleteWith that said, after seeing the impact of a less than majority mayor (and more than likely always the incumbent) people might view their original thought - if they supported eliminating the runoff - as a mistake.
The VBM harvest is always a concern - with or without a runoff - and it is always something that must be surmounted. And it has been on more than one occasion. Concentrating perpetual power with an incumbent, however, is just as dangerous - and is akin to gerrymandering in my book.
sometimes incumbents receive the most votes because more voters believe they are the best candidate for the job.
Deletei'm not sure i agree with your second paragraph. after all, mayor zimmer was a "less than majority mayor" who was very popular and well-liked, and would have cakewalked to reelection again this year. yes, i know, she wasn't popular with your close knit group of insiders but to the general voting population at large, she certainly was. and i don't think her performance as mayor would prompt anyone to change their minds about runoffs.
regarding your last point, i agree that "the VBM harvest is always a concern". but i guess we go our separate ways in that i (and i'd imagine, most reform voters) obviously believe it's a much worse/greater threat than you do and want to keep its role in elections minimized, not maximized (as it would be with runoffs).
So much for a run-off being "the will of the majority" when (low turnout) run-offs allow winners to eke across the finish line on VBM harvests. Like in 2009, Peter Camarrano won by 131 votes, if I recall. Does anyone remember the box of absentee ballots found at the Board of Elections? Yep, quite a jackpot for Camarrano. So, if bringing back run-offs brings a low turnout December election, and a fruitful VBM harvest, that seems to advantage the Dark Side, right?
Delete@me - to respond to your first (silly) comment; you can't put something that is illegal (drunk driving) on the ballot. Always happy to debate/discuss - but, serious metaphors are preferred.
DeleteI would say that there is a very good chance that former-mayor Zimmer would have been elected to a 3rd term and that may or may not have been because of her popularity. (and there is that incumbency thing....) Let us agree that neither of us can speak with any authority on how popular or unpopular she was with the 50, 55 or 60 thousand residents in town. If I were to guess, I would suggest that the majority probably didn't have an opinion one way or the other.
My last point was that adding a greater advantage than that which already exists to incumbency by not requiring majority rules (no runoff) is akin to gerrymandering in my book. Perhaps you disagree with that observation or, it does not matter to you if an incumbent's advantage is enhanced.
My 2nd to last point was about VBM and, between the two of us, I am the one that had to o to court to fight VBM harvesting impacting an election. So, please don't try to suggest that my stating that it is a concern should be translated into 'it's not a problem'. I simply do not agree that creating a permanent power-hold on our local government is the solution that problem.
as mentioned above, sometimes incumbents receive the most votes because more voters believe they are the best candidate for the job. why is that so hard to accept? why is an incumbent candidate automatically a bad thing?
Deletealso, i'm confused. in your last paragraph, you first correct me for apparently not adequately recognizing your past leadership against vote buying, then imply you have more of a problem with incumbents running for reelection than vote buying. were you against it before you were for it?
Yes, you are very confused. Unfortunately, I am unable to assist you with how to best improve your reading comprehension.
Delete@Me, it always comes down to arguing in circles with Indie and in the last lap being told your reading comprehension is the problem. I don't know why anyone still bothers.
DeleteJen (and Peter) are in an indefensible position. There is no needle to be threaded where you can enthusiastically collect signatures for an issue and later claim non-support of the issue. They've made a political bargain that requires abandoning the ideals of the people who elected them, which in turn requires them to invent the narratives needed to make it seem like they haven't changed. This is one of them. It's butt-stupid and doesn't merit serious discussion.
@indie, i'm quite aware that my reading comprehension and ability to articulate my thoughts are lacking, but we all have our burdens to bear. i'll try one more time.
DeleteI simply observed that in one sentence you stake claim to being at the forefront of fighting illegal vote buying, but your overall comments here largely dwell on how incumbents running for reelection are somehow the greater threat and danger to the electoral process and local democracy.
as i've said, now for the third time: sometimes incumbents receive the most votes because more voters believe they are the best candidate for the job. i'm still unsure why you find that so difficult to comprehend, instead viewing it as some sort of unfair and damaging advantage. why do you view an incumbent running for reelection to automatically be a bad thing?
''unfair and damaging advantage'' - keep projecting, you are very good at it.
Deleteso just tell us what you believe. which do you feel is a greater threat and problem: voting buying or incumbents running for reelection?
DeleteFalse choice.
Deletefalse choice? well, it's exactly what you've been saying above: vote buying is bad but incumbents running for reelection, oh boy, THAT's the real problem.
Deleteif i don't understand what you mean (which clearly i don't), then please just friggin' tell us what you mean!
The false narrative IndieComa is promoting, is that there will be more voters choosing the next candidates due to a runoff reducing the choice to two. They know and we know that's not true because of the low voter turnout in any runoff. They're also too stupid to realize that if they're successful with this ballot measure, it won't be their candidate who wins when it's time for that last round of vote-buying.
DeleteSuper work GA. You certainly have a sensational style, but the bare facts here tell the story.
ReplyDeleteJen is on video saying she never supported eliminated runoffs and there's her name on a petition call for a runoff.
Tiffanie says the voter fraud is her biggest concern and that she is a die hard supporter of Reform BOE candidates, but there she is sanitizing Ruben when Ruben has consistently supported the mail-in vote harvesters that have cost BOE seats.
After filing a pay-to-play ethics complaint against Michael during the election, Tiffanie is now conspicuously silent about it, and even voted to put Michael on the planning board, along with Jen and Peter. Anyone who knows Hoboken's history knows that the Planning Board is the last place you want someone with pay-to-play concerns.
This feels like high school and that Jen, Tiffanie, and Peter will do anything to get elected.
ReplyDeleteYes, there's a guaranteed 35% drop in turnout. But just remember.............
#MoreVoicesAreAlwaysBetterEXCEPTInElections
#ThenNotSoMuch
#TheMainThingIsWinning
#AndGettingRevenge
Oh poor 4th Ward - since the FBI never rode in on a horsey the VBM candidate will always rule down here...With the possible return of the run-offs the chance of a non VBM candidate winning is a new Unicorn....anyone down here who is supporting the run-offs - well they know how it will play out.
ReplyDeleteCouncilwoman Giattino supported eliminating the runoff in 2012. If she said at the meeting that she did not (I haven't watched it), then she is not telling the truth. It is as simple as that.
ReplyDeleteTo Indie's credit, she herself has been consistent and truthful about her own desire to have small turnout elections without the participation of what she considers "low information voters" meaning voters who are not paid for their votes and who do not start off every election cycle already thinking they know everything they need to know.
Unfortunate, Councilwoman Giattino, seems to be lying about her past position, instead of publicly acknowledging that her views have changed because of her inability to persuade "persuadable voters" to vote for her, and she feels. " If you can't persuade em - disinfranchise em" isn't the best rallying cry but it would have the virtue of being truthful and faithful to the ling held Indie perspective.
numberstancher - the king of knowing what other people think and decider of what other people mean....love it!
DeleteIndie - Giattino's public support for eliminating run-offs in 2012 is not speculation it is fact.
DeleteHer reasons for changing her position in the immediate aftermath of an election in which she fared poirly require speculation only because instead of candidly providing her reasons she has either "misremembered" her prior position or to be less charitable, lied about it.
Speaking of lying - your claim that this referendum will somehow facilitate the city unilaterally implementing instant run-offs without state enabling legislation is a lie.
Since you are opposed to speculation even about the obvious, I will not speculate about why you are attempting to mislead people. I will limit myself to noting it.
I see numberscruncher is having some today. I'm entertained. Thank you. :)
DeleteNumberstancher - If you read your OWN comment, you will see that you have decided that you 'know' what I think/mean. Newsflash: You don't.
DeleteIndie I was not speculating about your disdain for the people you consider low information voters and your desire to limit their participation in local elections. You have shared that view openly in the past with many people, myself included. Are you now disavowing that view or just blowing smoke.
DeleteThere ya go again! Making sh*t up and attributing your perception to someone else. However, if you would like to be specific about this supposed conversation....When was it? Where was it? Who was there? Who are these many people? (name them) And, of course, who are you?
DeleteIn the absence of answers to these questions, everything you just posted is pure BS - just some anonymous commenter with an axe to grind and nothing to back up their claims with...
Indie through all the smoke blowing you have not denied that I have accurately described your point of view. Do you prefer smaller turnout elections dominated by voters you consider "higher information" to bigger turnout elections with more voters who you consider low information?
DeleteIf the answer is yes then I have correctly stated your position and your complaint about my characterization is disingenuous.
Your false statements about the legal availability of instant runoff are a matter of public record. If your intent was not to mislead the public then you should publicly acknowledge that you were misinformed.
So, now you are going to demand that I answer you, eh? You already said that I told you my opinion (at some unknown time, in some unknown place and additionally to a whole bunch of other unknown people). Of course, as some anonymous commenter, like it or not, you have zero credibility. Sorry about that....
DeleteI haven't demanded anything - just posted a question that you have chosen not to answer, which is answer enough.
DeleteAs for my credibility, and yours, the readers here will assess that, not you or me. The fact that you post here evidences pretty clearly that you care what they think. Given that, you might want to consider whether your posts achieve whatever your objective is with GA's readers . Unless your objective is to prove the art of transparent disinjenuousness isn't limited to certain elected officials, I don't think you are achieving you objective.
Indie, answer the frigging question or go away.
DeleteI’d just like to remind everyone that there’s no greater testament to the excellence of Our Great Leader than an ever ready cast of shameless apologists, sycophants and lackeys.
DeleteSo instead of rolling your eyes at InDenial’s (sp?) increasingly absurd strawman arguments, you should be thinking “Wow, what a bizarrely tangled, self-cancelling defense of corruption. That Tiffanatrix must really be all that and a bag of chips!”
Now you try it at home! “Wow, what a bizarrely tangled, self-cancelling defense of corruption. That Tiffanatrix must really be all that and a bag of chips!”
Feels better already right! You’re welcome!
Numberstancher - you just can't control yourself, can you? Here is a question for you: Who are you? I mean, without the handle? I would like to know who is posting anonymously about an alleged conversation they had with me. Thanks for the response.
DeleteWith that said, I am, however, getting another solid chuckle reading how you, once again have decided that you know how I think and feel and what I care about. You really need to get a grip.
Indie I either have accurately described your position or I have not. If I have not then I will certainly apologize. The answer to that question isn't dependent on my identity or on whether you believe you've ever spoken to me about the pitfalls of wider voter participation.
DeleteObviously you can answer the question I've asked or not but criticizing me for accurately articulating your position is kind of dumb. Even if I were simply making it up (and I'm not) that doesn't mean I haven't gotten it right.
If you want to have a productive conversation about voter participation and you feel I've gotten your views wrong, feel free to put your position in your own words. Some might agree with you. Some might not. But at least an honest intelligent conversation could be had instead of the idiocy of you continuing to repeatedly complain that I have the audacity to speak the truth when truthiness better suits the purposes of the "resistance."
She doesn't want to answer the question. Every time she posts she proves that - and for me that is reason enough to believe that you are absolutely 100% correct in your characterization of her position. If you were wrong, she'd say so.
DeleteThe new Council Of No is being disingenuous, some may say lying, when they make the claim that more voters will decide a mayoral race if we go back to the days of runoffs. They know the turnout will be far less, and they're counting on that fact to gain extra time and use their illegal vote harvesting techniques once more. Let's not let them drag us back to the dark days of corruption, grafting, patronage jobs and using our city and its institutions like their own ATM's.
ReplyDeleteOf course they are lying but they are also being stupid. The sellouts will get sold out by the very people they now are aligned with. The developers will not pick them to be the beneficiary of their vote farming efforts.
Delete