It looks like 2012's grassroots success, eliminating run-off elections that are notorious for advantaging "Old Guard" candidates, may be reversed.
Reform's Mayor Dawn Zimmer, Mayor Ravi Bhalla, Councilman Jim Doyle and Councilwoman Emily Jabbour have all tried to stop it.
Mayor Bhalla issued his first veto last week of the 7-2 council's ordinance to put the reinstatement of runoffs on the ballot, but this Council has tipped back to the Old Guard. And the Old Guard knows how to win elections: low-turnout runoffs coupled with a healthy VBM harvest.
And the Council firewall which stood united against corruption since 2009?
Gone.
And the Council firewall which stood united against corruption since 2009?
Gone.
Like Body Snatchers, pod-people that look like Giattino, Fisher and Cunningham have replaced their good-government look-alikes. Their Dark Side doppelgangers chant "more voices are better" then exclude the voices of colleagues Jim Doyle and Emily Jabbour in a backroom power grab with Ruben Ramos and Mike DeFusco.
Now, these dark apparitions of people we used to trust, people who used to fight for the integrity of Hoboken elections, have now voted 3 times to put reinstatement of run-offs on the ballot, with allies Ruben Ramos and Mike DeFusco.
So, expect the mayor's veto to go down, down, down in another 7-2 vote.
Hey, let the voters decide (again).
Hey, let the voters decide (again).
But make no mistake, Hoboken residents know the lessons of history. In May 2009, Hoboken had a mayoral primary. Dawn Zimmer beat Peter Cammarano on the machines: 36% to 34%.
Then, a funny thing happened in the June 2009 Runoff election...
Zimmer beat Cammarano on the machines again: 5,829 to 5,564 or 51.2% to 49.8%.-- until the VBM/provisionals were counted.
Zimmer got 196 vbms/provisionals, Cammarano got 624.
That's how Cammarano got to "50% plus 1 vote" to beat Zimmer in 2009. His grand total was 6,188 votes or 50.6% to Zimmer's 6,025 or 49.4% .
Note, the 2017 VBM harvest (500 +/-) has increased since the 2009 VBM harvest that elected Peter Cammarano, in a run-off election.
Mysteriously, the Pod-People have adopted Dark Side talking points that VBM harvests are no longer a "problem" in Hoboken elections. Yeah sure Pod-People, wait until run-offs come back.
GA NOTE:
In 2013, runoffs had been eliminated and Dawn Zimmer got re-elected with 47% of the vote.
How do you think Zimmer would have fared in a run-off? Ask Ruben Ramos.
The fundamental dishonesty in the discussion is making believe a december runoff will produce the same result as a November one on one matchup would have.
ReplyDeleteThe proponents of a December runoff know full well that is not true - which is why they don't want instant runoffs - can't even bring themselves to vote for a resolution saying they would be preferable.
In 2013 Zimmer almost certainly would have won a one on one matchup with Ramos in November. A December runoff with 3000 fewer voters would have been a much more difficult race for her precisely because the paid for votes would have been harder to outvote.
This discussion is not really about run-offs - its about whether we choose our mayor in November or December.
One week before Christmas.
DeleteThis discussion is really about the sellouts turning their back on every honest voter in town as they try to destroy every good thing Zimmer accomplished while in office. It really is disgusting how their personal animosity toward the current and former mayor is coloring their actions. Time to replace all three of them.
DeleteThe end-game is to successfully lie about vote buying and December runoffs - for a whole year. It's not like they just have to get the proprietors of a few circle jerk blogs behind it. And it's not like it gets voted on next week. For Hoboken this is the equivalent of denying climate change. Both lethal and incredibly cynical. And they have to spend a year lying about it for political reasons.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that easy to do. On Hudson County View all the pro runoffs comments come down to personal attacks, some claptrap about "letting the voters decide." They don't have an answer to the 1000 or so bought votes or the guaranteed drop in turnout. If they really wanted to "let the voters decide," they'd be more honest about the parameters of the decision the voters will have to make. Attacking commenters and trying to wrap a cynical ploy in the flag is not a political strategy for a well educated community.
A year from now Tiff and Jen will be lying about lying about it. With their internet shills in tow. But this is their Hoboken Hospital - a political game played with the fate of the city. It won't be forgotten or forgiven.
^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^
Delete"Lying about lying about it". You are so right, DC. But they'll also have one or more of the three furies to lie about lying, like IndieComa.
Of all the issues, this runoff issue is really sticking in my craw. To support going back to old style runoffs is a joke. And any candidate who supports it will not have my support moving forward. The council should be using their influence to help push the state toward RCV (instant runoff) and the fact that they won't say that it's a preferable choice is absolutely ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThey have formed an alliance with people who want the Dec runoff with the low turnout bang for the buck vote buying. They are going around saying vote buying is no longer a problem, despite over 800 vbms for the old guard and Romano's pre-filled bait and switch vbm scam. But I doubt Jen and Till have the crust to say vote buying is all in the past in a cc meeting.
DeleteAt this point it doesn't matter. They have fallen on this particular sword. I am still waiting to hear from the major KF backers who joined this coalition. They have known for a very long time that Ramos and Defusco supported grifters for the school board. Do they really think they are swell guys the rest of the time; are they comfortable with Jen/Tiff joining forces with them? They appear to be.
I was for it before I was against it -- John Kerry
ReplyDeleteSee how being tagged with that worked out for him?
is there any way to impeach a councilperson?
ReplyDeleteThis is just my impression- I don't have any direct info or evidence to back this up- but I think the desire on the part of Team Giattino to reinstate runoffs isn't out of a desire to re-empower the old guard and the vote harvesters. I think it's more emotional, and less strategic, than that.
ReplyDeleteI think they're still very angry over Mayor Zimmer's withdrawal, and how the election unfolded from that point on. They think that their candidate got cheated of a fair chance. (Nevermind that I've never heard a convincing explanation of how a Reform "primary" could have actually worked.) Their candidate, and her supporters, were put in the position of choosing between what they considered to be a second-choice candidate that was in prime position due to a backroom deal/coronation decided by one individual who they didn't really trust, or splitting the vote and enabling Romano/DeFusco to win. They did hear the criticism, lobbed at them for months, that they were just undermining the Bhalla campaign and had become de facto allies of the old guard. It made them angry, because they felt that it wasn't their fault that they were doing what they were doing- they blamed Mayor Zimmer and Ravi for the "botched baton toss." (Side note... doesn't seem so botched now, does it?) They weren't the bad guys, they thought. Why does Ravi get to run? Just because the Mayor and her close advisers (you know who) preferred Ravi? Not fair!
But how to prevent such an election from repeating itself? There still isn't any believable, workable proposal for a Reform "primary"- I've never heard any proposal that makes any sense, anyway. Really, all that could have been done differently would have been for Mayor Zimmer to be more diplomatic in how she informed certain people of her choice. Or make a different choice, and run for a third term, which would have just postponed this drama. (Of course, none of the angry crew would be angry if Mayor Zimmer had chosen Jen and she had won.)
If we had runoffs, all the criticism of last summer and fall of "splitting the vote" would have disappeared. It's even possible, they imagine, that some Ravi supporters would have supported Jen, and just maybe she would have made it to the runoff. So maybe there can't be a Reform primary, but a run-off would be just as good. At the very least, had there been a runoff, they wouldn't have been made to feel by many that they were the bad guys.
For these people, the way the last election actually unfolded is more awful than the hypothetical possibility that someone like DeFusco could win a future December runoff due to voter fraud and decreased turnout. Even though it happened in 2009. I don't think it's more awful to them for any well thought out reason- it's just because they're still angry about what happened recently, and 2009 might as well be ancient history.
My guess is that they probably would prefer that the runoff be on election day in November. But Team Giattino only has three votes on the council, and the OGs have four votes. The OGs probably insisted on a December runoff for all the obvious reasons. And Team Giattino was willing to live with that deal because they saw it preferable to a repeat of this past election. God forbid they be treated like they're the bad guys ever again.
Hoboken Dem, thanks very much for your insight. What you say has the ring of truth to it. Giattino-Fisher-Cunningham ran an insurgency, not a campaign. They deserved to lose. They've got no one to blame but themselves. Instead of learning from losing like many successful politicians who've lost their first campaign - Bill Clinton for example, lost the first time he ran for Ark Governor- they've acted like spoiled brats who want to burn down the house we built together. And burn it they have- by breaking with the Reform coalition: Ravi, Doyle and Jabbour, to join Ruben Ramos and Mike DeFusco. Politically tone deaf , they've betrayed their constituents, betrayed all of the people who've helped them over the years. I guess they'll be running on a slate with DeFusco, Russo and Ruben in 2019.
DeleteJen lost because she sucked as a candidate. Jen was not selected by Zimmer for her endorsement because she sucked as a candidate. If the sellouts have hurt feelings b/c Jen lost so bad, perhaps they should go blame Jen because she never should have run.
DeleteAnd had Zimmer chosen not to endorse anyone, they'd be saying "Giattino lost because Zimmer wouldn't support her". A popular, respected, intelligent mayor has every right to support any candidate they wish, but had Zimmer said "vote for Jen!", or "Mike's your guy!", anyone who's been paying attention for the last several years would have said "WTF?"
DeleteBy their continued, petulant behavior, it's clear Zimmer, and Hoboken, made the right choice. With each childish, unprofessional maneuver, they become less and less re-electable.
What was the "process" for choosing Marsh as the candidate in 05? Mason wanted to run too. We can all laugh and snark about what a loon she turned out to be, but nobody knew that then. She had money and she had cred. Somebody decided Marsh was the better person to run as the candidate. Who decided that? "The voters"? Or some of the exact same folks complaining about the "process" of Zimmer endorsing Bhalla, calling it a backroom deal, when a backroom deal is exactly what they want, just one they're cut in on. Mason didn't get the nod, and her wounded ego got the better of her and she skidded of the rails. Seems like history is repeating itself, to a tee.
Deletethis post has a some of the best, most accurate comments i can imagine on the matter.
ReplyDelete