In the summer of 2012, Reform waged an epic grassroots battle to eliminate runoff elections and move all Hoboken elections to November.
The City Clerk's certification letter dated August 24, 2012 tells the story; there were two separate petitions- not one- circulated: a petition for the referendum ("Runoff Petition"), and a petition for the ballot initiative ("Initiative Petition").
Members of the public had the option to sign one petition and not the other; members of the Petitioning Committee told GA that is exactly what happened. Hence, that was why there were two separate petitions and not one.
Members of the public had the option to sign one petition and not the other; members of the Petitioning Committee told GA that is exactly what happened. Hence, that was why there were two separate petitions and not one.
REVISIONIST HISTORY
GA makes that distinction to clear up misrepresentations made by Vice President Giattino at the January 17, 2018 Council meeting.
In an apparent effort to explain her flip-flop on eliminating run-off elections (she supported them in 2012, before she didn't in 2017) Giattino presented some revisionist history. She told the public that there was only one petition for both runoffs and moving the election... More troubling, is Giattino's depiction of voters concerned about VBM harvests-- a real issue-- as believers in a false "good versus evil" narrative.
Listen to this short clip- it's only 1:30 minutes.
In an apparent effort to explain her flip-flop on eliminating run-off elections (she supported them in 2012, before she didn't in 2017) Giattino presented some revisionist history. She told the public that there was only one petition for both runoffs and moving the election... More troubling, is Giattino's depiction of voters concerned about VBM harvests-- a real issue-- as believers in a false "good versus evil" narrative.
Listen to this short clip- it's only 1:30 minutes.
The truth: the two petitions titled, "Runoff Petition" and "Initiative Petition" were filed contemporaneously on August 15 2012. Hoboken City Clerk Jimmy Farina wrote in the letter below that the petitions were "deemed sufficient" to be certified at the September 5, 2012 Council meeting.
CITY CLERK APPROVES PETITIONS
FLIP-FLOP
GA does not understand how Reform Council members who understood the peril of run-offs in 2012, now can be so dismissive of concerns about low turn-out and corruption by VBM harvesting.
Low turn-out and the VBM harvest factor must be viewed together. For obvious reasons. BoE candidate Biancamano's 462 VBMs did not elect him in 2017--a high-turnout election, but his 466 VBMs were good enough in 2014. Run-offs are low turnout elections- especially ones in December.
Yes, Hoboken's runoffs would occur at the beginning of December-- "three weeks" after the primary.
So, with low turnout, and a healthy VBM crop, Reform is toast. Remember the 2009 run-off? Zimmer lost to a VBM crop.
Run-offs had already been eliminated by the 2013 mayoral. But look at these vote totals.
Reform (Zimmer) got 6,123 total votes, the "Dark Side" (Occhipinti/Ramos) got 6,839 total votes. Reform won in 2013 because (1) two "Dark Side" candidates split the vote and (2) there was no runoff election.
GA's opinion: it is unlikely that Reform coalition can win a Run-off election because even if we counterbalance our opponents on the machine vote, they will slip past us on the VBM harvest.
Contrary to what Giattino and Fisher are reportedly saying, VBM harvests are not "gone."
2017 ELECTION RESULTS
How would a run-off have changed the 2017 election results? In GA's view, (1) low Reform turn-out and (2) a vigorous VBM harvest would have put the gum-smacking, immature, petulant, pro-development, P2Player Mike DeFusco in the mayor's office.
Of course, we will never know. But look at 2017's machine votes only (no VBMs/provisionals):
Low turn-out and the VBM harvest factor must be viewed together. For obvious reasons. BoE candidate Biancamano's 462 VBMs did not elect him in 2017--a high-turnout election, but his 466 VBMs were good enough in 2014. Run-offs are low turnout elections- especially ones in December.
Yes, Hoboken's runoffs would occur at the beginning of December-- "three weeks" after the primary.
So, with low turnout, and a healthy VBM crop, Reform is toast. Remember the 2009 run-off? Zimmer lost to a VBM crop.
Run-offs had already been eliminated by the 2013 mayoral. But look at these vote totals.
Reform (Zimmer) got 6,123 total votes, the "Dark Side" (Occhipinti/Ramos) got 6,839 total votes. Reform won in 2013 because (1) two "Dark Side" candidates split the vote and (2) there was no runoff election.
GA's opinion: it is unlikely that Reform coalition can win a Run-off election because even if we counterbalance our opponents on the machine vote, they will slip past us on the VBM harvest.
Contrary to what Giattino and Fisher are reportedly saying, VBM harvests are not "gone."
2017 ELECTION RESULTS
How would a run-off have changed the 2017 election results? In GA's view, (1) low Reform turn-out and (2) a vigorous VBM harvest would have put the gum-smacking, immature, petulant, pro-development, P2Player Mike DeFusco in the mayor's office.
Of course, we will never know. But look at 2017's machine votes only (no VBMs/provisionals):
Bhalla 4,781
Giattino 2,424
DeFusco 4,116
Romano 2,254
- "Reform" (Bhalla/Giattino) was 835 total machine votes ahead of the "Dark Side" (DeFusco/Romano)
- "Dark Side" (DeFusco/Romano) received 991 VBMs/Provisionals total votes
- "Reform" (Bhalla/Giattino) received 373 VBMs/Provisionals total votes
In a run-off, these 600 VBMs would have gone to one candidate. This year, a runoff would have occurred with a feuding Reform. Draw your own conclusions.
FLIPPITY-FLOPPITY FLOPPER FINALE
Councilpersons who dismiss the corruption of Hoboken elections are facilitators of that corruption.
FLIPPITY-FLOPPITY FLOPPER FINALE
Councilpersons who dismiss the corruption of Hoboken elections are facilitators of that corruption.
"...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 VBMs aren’t a problem story is nothing less than cynical. If it were 1 year ago and Russo had said the same, the self-titled Resistance would have flayed him alive. But it’s Tiff and Jen now, so it’s ok.
ReplyDeleteOur polling clearly indicates that our subscribers want to us to continue to flog Zimmer and post Trump collusion denials while mocking climate change. Zero interest in articles about our team lying about run offs or the fact that run offs will pretty much guarantee Old Guard victory.
ReplyDeleteSo we're just giving the people what they want. What's the problem?
#MoreHandpickedVoicesAreAlwaysBetter
#IfYourVoiceWasn'tPickedPleaseKeepQuietWhileTheImportantPeopleAreTalking
Shocker, Jen lies. In other news, water is wet and horse manure smells especially if you were dumb enough to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteA nicer way to put it (other than "lying") is telling people what she thinks they want to hear, whether truthful or not. (Just try telling this to a true-believer and they will call you crazy or tell others you are crazy behind your back or attack you viciously online- including posting ugly pics.) Truth-telling can be a lonely occupation when people don't want to hear it. Two more years to go.
DeletePeople who act like that don't care about the truth because they support the lies.
DeleteGA in this case Jen pretty clearly lied. Since she collected signatures for 2 separate petitions and signed both herself, it is pretty obvious she knew the imaginary story she told about the two questions being together was untrue.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether her claim to have not actually voted to eliminate the run off was a lie as well, there is no way to know. But in the unlikely event she is telling the truth about that, then she advocated the public vote for a position she herself voted against. And that's pretty dishonest too
Not a simple lie, numbers, but an elaborate fabrication- an "imaginary story," as you put it.
DeleteGiattino took a very public stand on keeping her vote private- the jaws of life couldn't get her presidential vote out of her, not at least for several weeks. So why all of a sudden is she volunteering her vote on eliminating runoffs (without being asked) amidst an elaborate "imaginary story"?
If an elected official can dissemble so brazenly to the public about one thing, why trust their word on anything?
Talk about glass half empty!
DeletePlease use this re-write:
Instead of the usual tiresome “simple lie,” we’re listening to your more voices that are always better. You want “elaborate fabrications” from your elected officials. We heard you and we delivered! This lie contains imaginary recollections of imaginary talks with voters coupled with an imaginary petition! Convoluted? You betcha! We also have a version with space alien involvement for the younger patsies in the audience!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe imaginary story has a broader purpose than just covering up Giattino's (and Cunningham's, Mello's and Fisher's) change of position.
ReplyDeleteIt's intended to foster the myth that the public was somehow "tricked" into eliminating the runoff by deviously combining it into a single ballot question with moving the election to November. The lie being sold is that people were "forced" to vote to eliminate run-offs despite not really supporting that, so the vote was somehow not a legitimate expression of the will of the voters.
Here in the real world, the questions were separate and voters could and in fact did, vote Yes on November elections and No on eliminating to runoff if that was their choice. About 2000 voters voted that way which is why "only" 9200 people voted to eliminate the runoff compared to about 11,000 who voted to move the election to November. Nobody was "tricked"- the voters knew full well what their choices were and resoundingly chose both November elections and no runoff albeit by different margins.
Admitting the voters knew what they were doing 5 years ago doesn't justify a redo based Some n 7 council people not liking election results. So whoever is writing Jen's "stuff" came up with the lie that the public was somehow "tricked."
in other words, the sellouts are full of crap and can no longer be trusted.
Deletedid i miss anything?
Not crap, horse manure. They are full of a specific kind of crap.
DeleteTo me, "reform" largely meant government officials telling the truth to the public. "Reform" isn't about.a particular position on development, or traffic solutions or open space - it's about working for the interests of the overall community rather than for yourself and your family and friends and telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I find the overt dishonesty of the "resistance" crew even more disturbing than their alliance with DeFusco/Ramos. Honest people can disagree about issues, and can agree to disagree as long as they tell the truth. If you can't tell the truth about what you are doing and why then perhaps you should consider not doing it rather than lying about it.
True. And I'd add that the correct motivation is as important as truth, because the end doesn't justify the means. We could all have predicted that the Russo's and Ramos's of Hoboken would stay in the game as long as they could, until age and attrition took their tolls. We could all have predicted that another young guy like DeFusco, Cammarano or Ochippinti, groomed by Fitzgibbons, would appear on the scene to be sold to "yuppies" and newcomers as one of their own, when really they were the better dressed automatons of their sleaze bag puppet masters. What we couldn't have predicted is just how unhinged Giattino, Cunningham, Fisher and Mello would become, and in so doing, align themselves with the old guard, who will use them to achieve an end. Runoff votes are part of that ploy.
DeleteIt is not the quantity of opinions you expound on but the quality of your opinions that makes people agree with you.
ReplyDeleteEmpty barrels make the most noise.
Not sure why anyone really cares about the noise being made by the same few empty barrels at this point.
Most voters in Hoboken equate them simply as perpetually disgruntled individuals spewing toxic politically and personally motivated negativity.
I would give the partial credit for Giattino's embarrassing election results to her embracing these same few people they in turn desperately seeking a broader audiance by latching on to her after the failed to find a suitable host with DeFusco.
Those empty barrels are legislators who've teamed up with people who buy elections.
DeleteThe issue I was addressing the small handful perpetually pissed off people who try to dominate discussions at the City Council, Hoboken Reporter and on line with largely exaggerated highly negative claims.. It is clear that they do not represent the majority of people voting in Hoboken, history has shown us that much of what they banter about is rightfully ignored.
DeleteDo we have numbers for runoff turnout for past Hoboken elections? Someone in favor of bringing them back recently posted on Facebook "The last time Hoboken held a runoff election for Mayor in 2009, turnout actually increased from the general election. "
ReplyDeleteIs that true? I was always under the impression that turnout is less in the runoff but never seen any actual numbers, do we know for sure what happened in 2009? Do we have numbers for runoffs any other years?
If the person above just posted this on FB, that means this is a message point being pushed by those who what runoffs to come back. Is there any group counteracting that message? I fear we've been distracted and may find ourselves with runoffs back on the books.