Election Results !!!!!!!!!!!!

Moderator: Jim DeVito

Dee Martinez
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:47 am

Postby Dee Martinez » Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:54 pm

Brad Hutchison wrote:[
With apologies, I'll make a sports analogy. The Colts and Patriots are the 2 best teams in the NFL this year. Because they play in the same conference, only one of them can go to the Superbowl. But that doesn't change the fact that they are the two best choices.

I would rather have Ed's vacant seat go to someone who is active in the community, ran a good campaign, and genuinely wants to serve Lakewood on city council, regardless of the outcome of the most recent election.

That's not to say there aren't worthy options that did not just run for office, I just don't think it matters.


While losing an election doesnt make you unqualfied for an office, "having an interest" in a position doesnt make you qualified either. There are a lot of failed candidates in Lakewood, and while they all had an interest, the thought of many of them holding office is scary.
The at-large council seat represents the entire community, not just Ward 2. Mr. Shields who again may be a very good man and should attempt to run again in 2009 if he believes he has the support, got less than half the votes in a single ward. Again, using that logic, Tom George should fill the seat, because almost 3 times as many voters approved of him as of Mr. Shields. In fact, Mr. George WON the seat Mr. Shields lost four times.

As for Mr. Demro he has run for citywide office twice and was badly beaten both times. While he has a core of devoted followers, appointing him would be a thumb in the eye of the majority of voters who rejected him by large numbers.
To me it just says the wrong thing when we say "it doesnt matter whether you win or lose, well GIVE you the office anyway"


Grace O'Malley
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm

Postby Grace O'Malley » Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:01 pm

I see your point, Dee.

Yet on the other hand, they're HANDING it to SOMEONE, right? Someone will be placed on council without the vote or consent of the residents.


Brad Hutchison
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:45 pm

Postby Brad Hutchison » Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:11 pm

Dee, I agree with you generally, and perhaps we're all overanalyzing this point a bit (not belittling Grace's concerns), but I'm having trouble following your logic that considers political office the prize in a game (I knew my football reference would come back to haunt me).

There are many people who would be good appointees, including some who were and were not recent candidates. I don't know why "didn't run" is automatically better than "ran, but lost."


Be the change you want to see in the world.

-Gandhi
Bryan Schwegler
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Lakewood

Postby Bryan Schwegler » Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:16 pm

Dee Martinez wrote:As for Mr. Demro he has run for citywide office twice and was badly beaten both times. While he has a core of devoted followers, appointing him would be a thumb in the eye of the majority of voters who rejected him by large numbers.


Dee, you keep saying he was rejected "by large numbers". Here are the official results from the Primary:

THOMAS J GEORGE 1931
EDWARD FITZGERALD 3835
RYAN PATRICK DEMRO 1201

700 votes is not many in a city wide election, especially when it's only 700 votes less than an incumbent mayor.

I just wanted to throw out the facts, I don't agree with your assesment.

My original suggestion of appointing Demor was mostly tongue in cheek, but I want to make sure the facts are straight.


TIM CARROLL

Postby TIM CARROLL » Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:19 pm

How about this theory:

Bump up one of the Ward Seats to At - Large and insert some who has been dedicated to that Ward.



Return to “2007 Lakewood Mayoral Election”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests