Franconia SB Candidate St. John-Cunning disqualified

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3000 people early voting does not meam 3000 democrat votes lost.

With the new redistricting of West Springfield neighborhoods into Franconia district, that 3000 early vote total could mean 1500 for the democrat and 1500 for the republican, depending on which precincts the votes came from.

Yeeeah, except the West Springfield Precinct, the one that moved to Franconia District, tends to run 60/40 blue. And Franconia District as a whole tends to run very blue.

Okay, so maybe 1800 democratic voters.

This might be a very good thing for the Franconia district.

After years of democrat representation, their school quality has steadily fallen. It seems like Franconia's consistently democratic representation on the school board has been very ineffective at advocating for the Franconia district schools and interests.

Keep doing the same thing means you are going to keep getting the same results.

Having a new perspective and voice for Franconia, especially since on paper he appears to be far more qualified than she is, and clearly far more attentive to details in real life, is likely going to end up shaking things up for Franconia and actually giving them a voice and advocate.

Ineffective as defined by you. Not defined by the many voters who keep voting for a D and now have to be represented by this Tool because of voter disenfranchisement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3000 people early voting does not meam 3000 democrat votes lost.

With the new redistricting of West Springfield neighborhoods into Franconia district, that 3000 early vote total could mean 1500 for the democrat and 1500 for the republican, depending on which precincts the votes came from.

Yeeeah, except the West Springfield Precinct, the one that moved to Franconia District, tends to run 60/40 blue. And Franconia District as a whole tends to run very blue.

Okay, so maybe 1800 democratic voters.

This might be a very good thing for the Franconia district.

After years of democrat representation, their school quality has steadily fallen. It seems like Franconia's consistently democratic representation on the school board has been very ineffective at advocating for the Franconia district schools and interests.

Keep doing the same thing means you are going to keep getting the same results.

Having a new perspective and voice for Franconia, especially since on paper he appears to be far more qualified than she is, and clearly far more attentive to details in real life, is likely going to end up shaking things up for Franconia and actually giving them a voice and advocate.

Ineffective as defined by you. Not defined by the many voters who keep voting for a D and now have to be represented by this MAGA Tool because of voter disenfranchisement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3000 people early voting does not meam 3000 democrat votes lost.

With the new redistricting of West Springfield neighborhoods into Franconia district, that 3000 early vote total could mean 1500 for the democrat and 1500 for the republican, depending on which precincts the votes came from.

Yeeeah, except the West Springfield Precinct, the one that moved to Franconia District, tends to run 60/40 blue. And Franconia District as a whole tends to run very blue.

Okay, so maybe 1800 democratic voters.

This might be a very good thing for the Franconia district.

After years of democrat representation, their school quality has steadily fallen. It seems like Franconia's consistently democratic representation on the school board has been very ineffective at advocating for the Franconia district schools and interests.

Keep doing the same thing means you are going to keep getting the same results.

Having a new perspective and voice for Franconia, especially since on paper he appears to be far more qualified than she is, and clearly far more attentive to details in real life, is likely going to end up shaking things up for Franconia and actually giving them a voice and advocate.

Ineffective as defined by you. Not defined by the many voters who keep voting for a D and now have to be represented by this MAGA Tool because of voter disenfranchisement.

I hope this poster is a troll and not someone who seriously believes any of this nonsense. SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted early last Thursday. There were lots of volunteers at the Franconia government center, explaining the situation and telling voters they needed to write her in. I’m pretty sure the D sample ballot had a sticker on it, also explaining she needed to be written in.

The Republican Party also had volunteers explaining the other side of the story. I do not feel like I went into the voting room uninformed.

I imagine they will do the same thing on Election Day.

Good for you. I voted weeks ago and will be disenfranchised.

That’s not what disenfranchised means. By your own admission, you were given the right to vote.

I was deprived of the right to vote for my school board rep in my district because they are trashing my vote. They should let early voters correct that vote or it's disenfranchisement.

[Anonymous]

Look at how long it has taken them to talk about getting rid of IB at Lewis. That was because lazy Derenak Kaufax sleptwalked through several terms on the SB.

Good to know Pinkney might actually pay attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted early last Thursday. There were lots of volunteers at the Franconia government center, explaining the situation and telling voters they needed to write her in. I’m pretty sure the D sample ballot had a sticker on it, also explaining she needed to be written in.

The Republican Party also had volunteers explaining the other side of the story. I do not feel like I went into the voting room uninformed.

I imagine they will do the same thing on Election Day.

Good for you. I voted weeks ago and will be disenfranchised.

That’s not what disenfranchised means. By your own admission, you were given the right to vote.

I was deprived of the right to vote for my school board rep in my district because they are trashing my vote. They should let early voters correct that vote or it's disenfranchisement.

Who is trashing your vote? The one who wasn't able to get enough proper signatures? Hopefully she'll do better next time. For now, she's out. Others who have been in her position (these things happen in every state and DC) are more graceful about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted early last Thursday. There were lots of volunteers at the Franconia government center, explaining the situation and telling voters they needed to write her in. I’m pretty sure the D sample ballot had a sticker on it, also explaining she needed to be written in.

The Republican Party also had volunteers explaining the other side of the story. I do not feel like I went into the voting room uninformed.

I imagine they will do the same thing on Election Day.

Good for you. I voted weeks ago and will be disenfranchised.

That’s not what disenfranchised means. By your own admission, you were given the right to vote.

my vote doesn't count now.

[Anonymous]

In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

Okay. So? She doesn't have the signatures. It can't be changed now, couldn't be changed any time after the deadline. She'll do better next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

When exactly? Why didn’t she get it right in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

When exactly? Why didn’t she get it right in the first place?

The process is that you can file signatures and then come back to file more as long as you file them before the deadline. She filed her initial round in March, and as the elections office was counting them she collected more, and then as she brought the additional signatures, they refused to accept them because they ruled she had qualified.

It is typical for candidates to file as early as they can with as many signatures as they have to secure prominent ballot placement. Then they continue collecting signatures just in case it's needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

Okay. So? She doesn't have the signatures. It can't be changed now, couldn't be changed any time after the deadline. She'll do better next time.

Please re-read what I said. She did have the additional signatures in March (before the June 20th deadline), but they refused to accept them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

Okay. So? She doesn't have the signatures. It can't be changed now, couldn't be changed any time after the deadline. She'll do better next time.

Please re-read what I said. She did have the additional signatures in March (before the June 20th deadline), but they refused to accept them.

It's too late now.

She sounds like such a sore loser. No way do I want her anywhere near the school board at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

Okay. So? She doesn't have the signatures. It can't be changed now, couldn't be changed any time after the deadline. She'll do better next time.

Please re-read what I said. She did have the additional signatures in March (before the June 20th deadline), but they refused to accept them.

It's too late now.

She sounds like such a sore loser. No way do I want her anywhere near the school board at this point.

NP, sounds like she had enough signatures before the deadline, the elections office just didn't accept some them (which would have otherwise overridden the handful of errors).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the hearing today it was pointed out that Marcia attempted to file additional signatures she collected and the office of elections refused to accept them. Since they already ruled she qualified. This is entirely the fault of the office of elections.

Okay. So? She doesn't have the signatures. It can't be changed now, couldn't be changed any time after the deadline. She'll do better next time.

Please re-read what I said. She did have the additional signatures in March (before the June 20th deadline), but they refused to accept them.

It's too late now.

She sounds like such a sore loser. No way do I want her anywhere near the school board at this point.

NP, sounds like she had enough signatures before the deadline, the elections office just didn't accept some them (which would have otherwise overridden the handful of errors).

Yup.