urbanMSP

Hey guys, did you look at the Star Tribune's precinct map? Ole Savior won a precinct. Figure that one out.

The precinct good Ole Savior won though, does anyone even live there? Isn't that just a park?

The Veterans' Home is there.

Thanks for speaking out Homer you're a courageous man. Your strongly held beliefs, as expressed numerous times on this board, include "government spending is out of control." Like most conservatives you're living in an alternate universe and deserve to have your fee fees hurt. Government spending at all levels has been flat or declining atthe city state and national level. I'm sorry but conservatives are either clueless or dishonest.

I'm late to the conversation, but if these are the facts, please point to the figures that prove government spending at all levels has been flat or declining. If you are going to hurt someone's fee fees, I think that you should at least back up your argument with hard data.

awesome she likes nascar and runs half marathons. i'm already annoyed and she hasn't even been offically declared the "winner" yet. maybe they'll get to that by next week.

welcome to a return to the malaise years minneapolis. rybak was the perfect mayor for this city and unfortunately anyone following his time in office won't match up.

awesome she likes nascar and runs half marathons. i'm already annoyed and she hasn't even been offically declared the "winner" yet. maybe they'll get to that by next week.

welcome to a return to the malaise years minneapolis. rybak was the perfect mayor for this city and unfortunately anyone following his time in office won't match up.

Dude, take it down a notch.

I'm late to the conversation, but if these are the facts, please point to the figures that prove government spending at all levels has been flat or declining. If you are going to hurt someone's fee fees, I think that you should at least back up your argument with hard data.

It seems to check out. At least in comparison to GDP.



I looked at Minneapolis' budget and I saw the city's numbers and looked at the total expense budget:

2010: $1.28 bil
2011: $1.36 bil
2012: $1.22 bil
2013: $1.20 bil
2014 recommended: $1.10 bil

I know the numbers are simplified, but I think they are convincing.

I know it's a small sample size and all, but I do find it fascinating how different fringe candidates send a whole block of votes to one main stream candidate but not another.

For example, just-eliminated Jeffrey Alan Wagner (he of the walking out of the lake video fame) sent three times as many votes to Andrew as to Hodges. Was Andrew courting the speedo vote?

I know it's a small sample size and all, but I do find it fascinating how different fringe candidates send a whole block of votes to one main stream candidate but not another.

Yeah, I was thinking that same thing. Even with a small sample size it's uncanny. It will be interesting to see how the votes of the more mainstream candidates are reallocated.

That's also the reason I was surprised to see Mark Andrew so quick to concede - there's no reason to assume an even distribution of second-choice votes, and order of candidates being dropped combined with strong allegiances in second-choice voting could certainly affect the outcome. If all of Mark's second-choice votes came from Jackie and Don supporters while all of Betsy's came from Mark supporters, it would be possible for the outcome to change - not even vaguely likely, but possible, and we just don't know what kind of strategies people may have be using when they picked their votes.

What happens if all 3rd place votes are exhausted before someone hits the threshold? Then highest vote getter wins?

I'm assuming this is Wordpress' fault rather than a conscious decision by the City, but I wish the rounds were posted horizontally rather than vertically. That would make it easier to follow how the totals change with each elimination. I know I can copy & paste, but grumble grumble.

Also, Joel Kramer has a good piece about how the delay is mostly due to stupid wording:

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy ... arithmetic

Hopefully that gets fixed along with the filing fee.

I know it's a small sample size and all, but I do find it fascinating how different fringe candidates send a whole block of votes to one main stream candidate but not another.

Yeah, I was thinking that same thing. Even with a small sample size it's uncanny. It will be interesting to see how the votes of the more mainstream candidates are reallocated.

Agreed. It is fascinating.

Jaymie Kelly (Stop Foreclosures Now) was just eliminated.
74 votes to Hodges
32 votes to Doug Mann (no surprise there)
8 votes to Mark Andrew
5 votes to Cam Winton (WHAT?!...that makes no sense)

5 votes to Cam Winton (WHAT?!...that makes no sense)

It doesn't, but it seems to be more common than you'd think. I kept seeing tweets (retweeted by Hodges' account) over the past few weeks saying that their first choice was Hodges, but their second was Winton. I'm still holding out hope that I'll eventually figure out what the thought process is there.

If you voted for Hodges because of her fiscal sense, and wanted your number two to also have some fiscal sense, and you assume Republicans have fiscal sense...

If you voted for Hodges because of her fiscal sense, and wanted your number two to also have some fiscal sense, and you assume Republicans have fiscal sense...

Yes, there was apparently something of a mutual admiration society between Hodges, Samuels, and Winton at the debates.

I'd appreciate it if the city were to sort their listing it by number of votes, rather than by whatever random order they're using.

Which reminds about my gripe regarding the ballots. I understand why you want somebody different at the top of ballots in different precincts, but once you've done that, couldn't you alphabetize the rest of the list?

Hodges and WInton had this annoying habit of tag teaming and passing each other questions at the debates. Perhaps they had a secret alliance

If they listed it by number of votes, the order would have been continually changing. The order they're using - presumably random and possibly the ballot order - has stayed consistent from round to round.

If they listed it by number of votes, the order would have been continually changing. The order they're using - presumably random and possibly the ballot order - has stayed consistent from round to round.

Precisely. If you're counting ballots in order to determine who's winning, wouldn't you want the ordering to change to reflect the changes after each round? I'm not sure what the benefit is of keeping it in the same random order.

Mark V Anderson definitely got some "confusion" votes meant for Mark Andrew, right?

It will be interesting to see how many of his votes go to Mark Andrew, and hilarious if it was none or very few, supporting my theory.