Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That count took so long and there will be a recount that I don’t even care anymore. Reimer screwed up the race and I hope he gets voted out next round.
Riemer is term-limited. This is his last year on the council.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That count took so long and there will be a recount that I don’t even care anymore. Reimer screwed up the race and I hope he gets voted out next round.
Riemer is term-limited. This is his last year on the council.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.
Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.
Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?
Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.
It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman
What I’m trying to understand is how Riemer voters can claim that RCV is important when they also say Elrich was their second choice. Sounds like they are talking out of both sides of their mouths out of convenience to absolve blame for re-electing Elrich.
Seems like a disingenuous candidate has many disingenuous supporters. It’s an affinity group.
Anonymous wrote:That count took so long and there will be a recount that I don’t even care anymore. Reimer screwed up the race and I hope he gets voted out next round.
Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.
Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.
Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Phew, I'm relieved. I didn't vote for him but started getting anxious when it looked like he might lose. I'm glad he won.
Boo
serious question: the MoCo 'track my ballot' page on the board of elections says my ballot was received but is not updated beyond that (I voted by mail, not provisional...so it should have been counted). Does this mean they actually didn't county my vote or does it mean the system was not updated? (I voted by mail, put it in a drop box a few days before the election)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.
Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.
Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?
Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.
It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.
Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.
Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?
Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.
It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman