Jack Evans: “DC Must Address Its Crime Issue”

[Anonymous]

I wonder if crime is as high in places with open carry and where laws for shooting if it's self defense are lenient. Are criminals still as emboldened there or they just carry heavier "arsenal" to out-shoot potentially armed disgruntled victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me fix that for ya:
“DC COUNCIL must address the crime issue”

That will never happen. So bring in the federal protectorate

Crime was much higher in DC before home rule.

Well it would be much better now. It was lovely clean and quiet, albeit a bit scary looking, after 1/6 when we had to secure the city from the gop yahoos

I’d fight to both get the representation and be ruled by the federal gvt; like a sovereignty hand in contract. No more corruption and waste. No tax. Can take councilmen salaries and build housing

Are you saying most criminals are the unhoused ones? Never heard of organized crime?

[Anonymous]

Troll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp. We are gonna have to wait until at least 2026 to turn this ship around. That is the earliest Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, and the Pro-Crime gang can be voted out of office. Until then we will be living in a city where the lives of decent, hard-working people of all races, ethnicities, and ages are not worth as much as the lives of criminals.

In 2024, we can get rid of Robert White, Brooke Pinto, Christina Henderson, Janeese Lewis George and Trayon White.

You will have to ask for election changes before then. The way we run our elections , people with name recognition and a surprisingly slim amount of the vote take all. There have been folks clamoring for change for years

Here is an explanation. Otherwise, incumbents or folks with name recognition (who let's face it often have extreme views and small, but vocal support) take the pie with a slim lead and no one else can even get a foot in the race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

We need ranked voting in DC today. I am actually surprised it has not been implemented here yet.

I can't think of an election in recent memory where ranked choice voting would have changed the outcome. And for me, "recent memory" means since 1992.

Left wing progressives think that more people would vote for their candidates but don’t because they compromise and vote for “electability”.

The truth about RCV, based on actual studies, is that it hurts voter turnout by making elections more complicated which results in less democracy not more. So it’s a system that works to entrench partisanship.

The first paragraph demonstrates that you don’t know anything about RCV. The second demonstrates that you nonetheless feel entitled to make stuff up about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp. We are gonna have to wait until at least 2026 to turn this ship around. That is the earliest Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, and the Pro-Crime gang can be voted out of office. Until then we will be living in a city where the lives of decent, hard-working people of all races, ethnicities, and ages are not worth as much as the lives of criminals.

In 2024, we can get rid of Robert White, Brooke Pinto, Christina Henderson, Janeese Lewis George and Trayon White.

You will have to ask for election changes before then. The way we run our elections , people with name recognition and a surprisingly slim amount of the vote take all. There have been folks clamoring for change for years

Here is an explanation. Otherwise, incumbents or folks with name recognition (who let's face it often have extreme views and small, but vocal support) take the pie with a slim lead and no one else can even get a foot in the race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

We need ranked voting in DC today. I am actually surprised it has not been implemented here yet.

I can't think of an election in recent memory where ranked choice voting would have changed the outcome. And for me, "recent memory" means since 1992.

Left wing progressives think that more people would vote for their candidates but don’t because they compromise and vote for “electability”.

The truth about RCV, based on actual studies, is that it hurts voter turnout by making elections more complicated which results in less democracy not more. So it’s a system that works to entrench partisanship.

Total nonsense: https://www.amny.com/politics/ranked-choice-voting-boosted-turnout-diversity-nyc-primary/

[Anonymous]

Hey Jack? There’s a bunch of people selling used Canada Goose jackets on Offer Up. Wanna address you some crime? Start with the easy stuff, work your way up. You know what criminal activity looks like close up so should be second nature

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp. We are gonna have to wait until at least 2026 to turn this ship around. That is the earliest Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, and the Pro-Crime gang can be voted out of office. Until then we will be living in a city where the lives of decent, hard-working people of all races, ethnicities, and ages are not worth as much as the lives of criminals.

They can be recalled. Need to wait 365 days after the start of their most recent term.

Lets do this- im serious. Im a Dem but would support this wholeheartedly. Also, where are the honest moderates, independents and republicans willing to run? Jack evans is not one. Also i havexa hard time taking anyone seriously who still calls themselves a republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp. We are gonna have to wait until at least 2026 to turn this ship around. That is the earliest Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, and the Pro-Crime gang can be voted out of office. Until then we will be living in a city where the lives of decent, hard-working people of all races, ethnicities, and ages are not worth as much as the lives of criminals.

In 2024, we can get rid of Robert White, Brooke Pinto, Christina Henderson, Janeese Lewis George and Trayon White.

You will have to ask for election changes before then. The way we run our elections , people with name recognition and a surprisingly slim amount of the vote take all. There have been folks clamoring for change for years

Here is an explanation. Otherwise, incumbents or folks with name recognition (who let's face it often have extreme views and small, but vocal support) take the pie with a slim lead and no one else can even get a foot in the race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

We need ranked voting in DC today. I am actually surprised it has not been implemented here yet.

I can't think of an election in recent memory where ranked choice voting would have changed the outcome. And for me, "recent memory" means since 1992.

Left wing progressives think that more people would vote for their candidates but don’t because they compromise and vote for “electability”.

The truth about RCV, based on actual studies, is that it hurts voter turnout by making elections more complicated which results in less democracy not more. So it’s a system that works to entrench partisanship.

The first paragraph demonstrates that you don’t know anything about RCV. The second demonstrates that you nonetheless feel entitled to make stuff up about it.

“RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use. It also increased the perception that the voting process was slanted against the respondent’s party. Similarly, I found that it increased the amount of time it took to vote by nearly 12 seconds per candidate than voting using a plurality ballot.”
https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine

Who doesn’t know what about what again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp. We are gonna have to wait until at least 2026 to turn this ship around. That is the earliest Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, and the Pro-Crime gang can be voted out of office. Until then we will be living in a city where the lives of decent, hard-working people of all races, ethnicities, and ages are not worth as much as the lives of criminals.

In 2024, we can get rid of Robert White, Brooke Pinto, Christina Henderson, Janeese Lewis George and Trayon White.

You will have to ask for election changes before then. The way we run our elections , people with name recognition and a surprisingly slim amount of the vote take all. There have been folks clamoring for change for years

Here is an explanation. Otherwise, incumbents or folks with name recognition (who let's face it often have extreme views and small, but vocal support) take the pie with a slim lead and no one else can even get a foot in the race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

We need ranked voting in DC today. I am actually surprised it has not been implemented here yet.

I can't think of an election in recent memory where ranked choice voting would have changed the outcome. And for me, "recent memory" means since 1992.

Left wing progressives think that more people would vote for their candidates but don’t because they compromise and vote for “electability”.

The truth about RCV, based on actual studies, is that it hurts voter turnout by making elections more complicated which results in less democracy not more. So it’s a system that works to entrench partisanship.

Total nonsense: https://www.amny.com/politics/ranked-choice-voting-boosted-turnout-diversity-nyc-primary/

Oh wow, an interested political group says something. Must be true. Unfortunately an actual study by MIT academics says something very different.

“RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use. It also increased the perception that the voting process was slanted against the respondent’s party. Similarly, I found that it increased the amount of time it took to vote by nearly 12 seconds per candidate than voting using a plurality ballot.”
https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp. We are gonna have to wait until at least 2026 to turn this ship around. That is the earliest Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, and the Pro-Crime gang can be voted out of office. Until then we will be living in a city where the lives of decent, hard-working people of all races, ethnicities, and ages are not worth as much as the lives of criminals.

In 2024, we can get rid of Robert White, Brooke Pinto, Christina Henderson, Janeese Lewis George and Trayon White.

You will have to ask for election changes before then. The way we run our elections , people with name recognition and a surprisingly slim amount of the vote take all. There have been folks clamoring for change for years

Here is an explanation. Otherwise, incumbents or folks with name recognition (who let's face it often have extreme views and small, but vocal support) take the pie with a slim lead and no one else can even get a foot in the race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

We need ranked voting in DC today. I am actually surprised it has not been implemented here yet.

I can't think of an election in recent memory where ranked choice voting would have changed the outcome. And for me, "recent memory" means since 1992.

Left wing progressives think that more people would vote for their candidates but don’t because they compromise and vote for “electability”.

The truth about RCV, based on actual studies, is that it hurts voter turnout by making elections more complicated which results in less democracy not more. So it’s a system that works to entrench partisanship.

Total nonsense: https://www.amny.com/politics/ranked-choice-voting-boosted-turnout-diversity-nyc-primary/

Oh wow, an interested political group says something. Must be true. Unfortunately an actual study by MIT academics says something very different.

“RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use. It also increased the perception that the voting process was slanted against the respondent’s party. Similarly, I found that it increased the amount of time it took to vote by nearly 12 seconds per candidate than voting using a plurality ballot.”
https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine

You found a single non-peer reviewed study that doesn’t even support your claim about turnout and which is broadly contradicted by the rest of the literature. There are sea cucumbers who could use Google better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp. We are gonna have to wait until at least 2026 to turn this ship around. That is the earliest Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, and the Pro-Crime gang can be voted out of office. Until then we will be living in a city where the lives of decent, hard-working people of all races, ethnicities, and ages are not worth as much as the lives of criminals.

In 2024, we can get rid of Robert White, Brooke Pinto, Christina Henderson, Janeese Lewis George and Trayon White.

You will have to ask for election changes before then. The way we run our elections , people with name recognition and a surprisingly slim amount of the vote take all. There have been folks clamoring for change for years

Here is an explanation. Otherwise, incumbents or folks with name recognition (who let's face it often have extreme views and small, but vocal support) take the pie with a slim lead and no one else can even get a foot in the race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting

We need ranked voting in DC today. I am actually surprised it has not been implemented here yet.

I can't think of an election in recent memory where ranked choice voting would have changed the outcome. And for me, "recent memory" means since 1992.

Left wing progressives think that more people would vote for their candidates but don’t because they compromise and vote for “electability”.

The truth about RCV, based on actual studies, is that it hurts voter turnout by making elections more complicated which results in less democracy not more. So it’s a system that works to entrench partisanship.

Total nonsense: https://www.amny.com/politics/ranked-choice-voting-boosted-turnout-diversity-nyc-primary/

Oh wow, an interested political group says something. Must be true. Unfortunately an actual study by MIT academics says something very different.

“RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use. It also increased the perception that the voting process was slanted against the respondent’s party. Similarly, I found that it increased the amount of time it took to vote by nearly 12 seconds per candidate than voting using a plurality ballot.”
https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine

You found a single non-peer reviewed study that doesn’t even support your claim about turnout and which is broadly contradicted by the rest of the literature. There are sea cucumbers who could use Google better.

You posted a newspaper article about a report from a partisan interest group. Are you a clown? Because you sure sound like one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if crime is as high in places with open carry and where laws for shooting if it's self defense are lenient. Are criminals still as emboldened there or they just carry heavier "arsenal" to out-shoot potentially armed disgruntled victims.

Well, what we do know is that in countries where guns are mostly banned, there is a negligible amount of gun crime. We could start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if crime is as high in places with open carry and where laws for shooting if it's self defense are lenient. Are criminals still as emboldened there or they just carry heavier "arsenal" to out-shoot potentially armed disgruntled victims.

Well, what we do know is that in countries where guns are mostly banned, there is a negligible amount of gun crime. We could start there.

The link is stronger with drug abuse and trafficking to violence than simply guns, regardless whether drugs are decriminalized or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp. We are gonna have to wait until at least 2026 to turn this ship around. That is the earliest Charles Allen, Brianne Nadeau, and the Pro-Crime gang can be voted out of office. Until then we will be living in a city where the lives of decent, hard-working people of all races, ethnicities, and ages are not worth as much as the lives of criminals.

They can be recalled. Need to wait 365 days after the start of their most recent term.

Lets do this- im serious. Im a Dem but would support this wholeheartedly. Also, where are the honest moderates, independents and republicans willing to run? Jack evans is not one. Also i havexa hard time taking anyone seriously who still calls themselves a republican.

The Ward level Democrat organizations which largely pick the primary winners could care less about crime. They are run by aging hippies or young progressives. Bike lanes, housing vouchers for all and marijuana dispensaries get them excited. Save your energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I’m not in danger of getting shot in the street I can live with some paperwork shenanigans about school playing fields. White collar crime has very little effect on quality of life as compared to violent street crime

Agree, I would take Jack Evans back over some of these current members of Council. DC’s crime is totally out of hand.