|
|
· Bulletin Board |
|
|
|
|
|||
The comments posted on this message board represent the individual opinions of their respective posters only and are not to be construed as statements of proven or alleged fact.
Bulletin Board Discussion Forums Village Government... Discussion of election results Read-Only TopicGo | Find | Notify | Tools |
| Discussion of election results | Login/Join |
| GlenEllynite |
I suppose we could discuss each electon in its different forum, but I was wondering if folk were interested in discussing what conclusions - if any - could be drawn from yesterday's results. Looks like a good number of challengers were elected, but some incumbents retained their offices as well. In some elections such as for Park District and COD, some - but not all - members of "slates" of challengers won. Seems like there was at least some desire among the voters to get some fresh blood, but in specific cases individual incumbents were retained. Any big surprises for anyone? Personally, I'm a tad surprised at how well so many challengers did. | ||
|
GlenEllynite |
The Park District guys reeeeaaaally got pwned. I was a little surprised by that. I figured Mrs. Creech would run away with the votes (and she did), but I thought some of the incumbents would show some strength and get some support. They did not. Not being too involved in PD politics, I am not certain what the desire for change was all about. But the desire was there...and those three kicked ***. | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
I think this was a bad time to run as an incumbent not just in GE but in other suburbs as well. In the PD's case the Referendum for the new sportsplex probably did them in. Even though it was billed as a no new tax ref it still only won by a 53-46 margin. In COD you had a well organized and well financed group so that was pretty much a no brainer on that one. | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
So the slate of 3 challengers easily finished 1-3. Any thoughts as to why Aubrey finished first of the incumbents, a full 200 votes ahead of the next incumbent? Will be interesting to see/hear what - if any - impact the new commissioners have on PD policy. For COD, Kim, Savage, Svoboda, and Wendorf ran as a slate. All made it except for Wendorf. Wendorf finished a close 4th behind O'Donnell - both of whom got 50% more votes than the next votegetter. Any thoughts why folk would split their votes in that manner? Was O'Donnell clearly superior to the other candidates? | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
Probably not much since they are still only three on a board of eight. And lets faoe it how much open space land is avilable to spend money on. | |||
|
GlenEllynite |
I think the low voter turnout affected the incumbants a little as well, unless they campaigned hard. Most challengers were able to bring their base to the polls. With such low turnout, all votes counted. “just like in real life there's still rules on this team. Unlike real life? Nobody's above the rules on this field." – Coach Eric Taylor | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
Don't buy the low turnout argument. People had two weeks of early voting. So plenty of time to get people to vote for you. The PD people lost because of the new Sports Complex, the Referendum and how they handled it. Also the Challengers ran as a slate, and they had an issue. The incumbents only issue was their experience. But in the Age of Obama experience is not such a great asset. | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
I find it hard to tell exactly how many folks voted. From the GE president's election, it looks like around 3800. Anyone know how that compares to turnout in similar past local elections w/o disputed referenda? | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
This statement resonates somewhat unusually with me, because even tho the incumbents and their supporters may have lost this election, they clearly won in that they are going to have that building to enjoy - and pay for - for years to come. | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
20% this election compared to 80% in the presidential | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
The highest vote for a single candidate was I think 10,000 votes so would that be a good number to use | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
They ran as a slate and had an issue....that issue was what drove voters (small in number they may be) to their poll. Overall, the incumbants definitely were affected by the low turnout as they were not railing against themselves in ficticious cause. Did they have the ability to drive more voters because of early voting? I don't think that has been proven that more people vote now that they are not confined by the single voting day. People, in general, did not care about these elections unless they were an interested party to one or more of the candidates. Whoever draws the most friends and relatives to the polls wins. “just like in real life there's still rules on this team. Unlike real life? Nobody's above the rules on this field." – Coach Eric Taylor | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
Sounds like sour grapes to me. So, you're saying that Melissa Creech has 2566 friends and family in GE. I wonder if she has one of those Verizon calling plans. In every election from President down to Village Clerk people vote against someone as much as they vote for. Reason why you have negative campaigning and why incumbents do badly when the economy is bad. The PD board handed their opponents an issue and they used it. | |||
|
GlenEllynite |
BINGO!!! I attended the election-night gathering of the PD3 and I feel confident that their goal is transparency and fiscal accountability. | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
“just like in real life there's still rules on this team. Unlike real life? Nobody's above the rules on this field." – Coach Eric Taylor | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
I'm glad to hear you say this, Amy. I wasn't particularly comfortable voting for them. I hope you are right. | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
Re: turnout. I'm not sure it is very telling to compare this turnout to the presidential election. And I believe the individuals receiving 10K votes were for township, countywide, or D87 office, rather than GE. Man, between last November's election and this one, I'm sure not used to having this many folk I voted for actually winning! Let's see if my guys can mess things up as badly as the other guys!  | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
How about 50.6% when the vote was for the field house at ackerman to 20% this election. | |||
|
| New User |
Here is why I think the voters turned out for the election of the GE Park District. GE Park District's and Village of GE's plan to cut down over 350 very old trees included misinformation (20 acres of trees on Ackerman Park for example-GEESH!) only after they were forced to disclose the plans. They did not hold any public hearings because of a technicality so until Melissa Creech saw activity and flags posted in Ackerman Woods no one was the wiser. Then weeks went by before information was released using Freedom of Information Act forms. Citizens had to spend hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours to get the information. The old board and staff did not step up and provide info until they were required. The Village of GE had an equal hand in this problem too as both groups pointed fingers at each other saying it wasn't their decision so the other group had to decide first. The citizens held firm in their belief to save the woods. And the icing on the proverbial cake was when the President of the GE Park District said at one of their meetings attended by hundreds of concerned citizens that "it was a sin that these people were suggesting they were doing anything wrong." As it turns out the overwhelming majority of voters decided he was wrong. | |||
|
| GlenEllynite |
Amy...was there any discussion at the Creech gala as to why I was not on the guest list??? Ridiculous! I am at the top of most exclusive party invite lists! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Read-Only Topic Bulletin Board Discussion Forums Village Government... Discussion of election results | View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |