|
Post by lbinmd on Oct 13, 2016 14:23:20 GMT -4
Hello KI Neighbors. I want to ask all of you to come out to a community forum being held tonight, October 13th at 6:30 at the Kent Island Branch Library. Your voting rights are at stake and your input is critical! The forum involves November election ballot Question A, which asks Queen Anne's County residents whether they want to switch the voting process for county commissioners. Currently we have 5 votes for our 5 county commissioners. If Question A passes, the system could be changed so that we lose the right to vote for all 5 and we will only be allowed to vote for 2 Commissioners, one from our respective district (KI is Districts 3 and 4), and one at-large commissioner. ALL 5 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE POWER OVER THE RESIDENTS OF KENT ISLAND, BUT WE WILL NO LONGER HAVE VOTING POWER OVER THEM. Our Commissioners serve as both the legislative branch and executive branch of government and the only checks and balances we have are the VOTERS. Voting by district will limit your votes and your voice, and pit district against district. Proponents are saying that Kent Island residents or 'commuters on Kent Island', 'interfere with [their] districts' simply because we exercise our right to vote. Kent Island accounts for much of the tax base, and we share the resources earned here with the rest of the county. This measure amounts to TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. We need elected leaders who unite not divide and who will serve ALL county residents, not just those in their districts. Please attend and ask the proponents of this measure, how Question A will make our county commissioners MORE responsive to the residents of Stevensville and Chester. VOTE AGAINST QUESTION A to keep QAC ONE COUNTY, 5 VOTES STRONG! Thanks and hope to see you all TONIGHT!! Learn more... Question A is Wrong for QAC Link to : vp.telvue.com/preview?id=affiliate1&video=290755Hear for yourself... Question A- LWV Forum 1 Link to: vp.telvue.com/preview?id=affiliate1&video=290646ANOTHER SLAP IN THE FACE TO KENT ISLAND VOTERS FROM PRO-QUESTION A:
|
|
|
Post by constructr on Oct 13, 2016 17:58:04 GMT -4
Very informative. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by kidoode on Oct 14, 2016 9:42:04 GMT -4
Agree that this makes no sense and should be voted down. I suspect the people behind this can't get elected and are trying in increase their chances. Their argument that county wide races are too expensive is an absolute red herring. Bottom line, this proposal diminishes the voters and should be rejected.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 14, 2016 10:09:39 GMT -4
Why should Kent Island alone determine the direction in which the entire county moves? That's ridiculous.
Vote FOR Question A!
|
|
|
Post by kidoode on Oct 14, 2016 14:09:36 GMT -4
If all 5 Commissioners have a vote over how my tax dollars are spent, I want a say on who all 5 of them are.
Just that simple.
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Oct 15, 2016 0:41:38 GMT -4
Why should Kent Island alone determine the direction in which the entire county moves? That's ridiculous. Vote FOR Question A! IIRC every district has the same amount of voters. Maybe the other districts should show up at the polls.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 15, 2016 10:34:05 GMT -4
If all 5 Commissioners have a vote over how my tax dollars are spent, I want a say on who all 5 of them are. Just that simple. Because you have a say in electing State legistaltors for every district. Because you have a say in electing Federal Senators and Representatives in every district of the country. Silly argument.
|
|
|
Post by ravensfan on Oct 17, 2016 16:41:58 GMT -4
There was a time when there were only 3 commissioners and none were from Kent Island. Needless to say the county was ruled by up county people.
Kent Island paid the bills but had little say on the running of the county.
5 commissioners elected by all, changed how the county was run, for the better.
Vote NO.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Oct 17, 2016 18:14:51 GMT -4
There was a time when there were only 3 commissioners and none were from Kent Island. Needless to say the county was ruled by up county people. Kent Island paid the bills but had little say on the running of the county. 5 commissioners elected by all, changed how the county was run, for the better. Vote NO. I suspect the "up county people" may not agree that the change was for the better. Would we consider it better if PG County and Baltimore City were allowed to vote for all State Legislators? I imagine they would consider that a change for the better.
|
|
|
Post by kidoode on Oct 18, 2016 8:48:53 GMT -4
Given the number of outright whack jobs there are in Congress, maybe we all should be having say in each of their elections.
Example: The majority leader of the Senate is a very powerful position who can move the agenda, or obstruct things in a large way. Guy is a lifer, elected repeatedly from one of the poorest, dumbest, most drug adddicted, least productive States in the Union. I don't think he is representing my interests at all, but have little say about it.
Silly argument? Only if you support incompetance.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 18, 2016 9:21:04 GMT -4
Given the number of outright whack jobs there are in Congress, maybe we all should be having say in each of their elections. Example: The majority leader of the Senate is a very powerful position who can move the agenda, or obstruct things in a large way. Guy is a lifer, elected repeatedly from one of the poorest, dumbest, most drug adddicted, least productive States in the Union. I don't think he is representing my interests at all, but have little say about it. Silly argument? Only if you support incompetance. "That's not how it works. Its not how any of this works."
|
|
|
Post by truevet on Oct 18, 2016 21:06:50 GMT -4
I'm going to vote AGAINST just because frankf is voting FOR!
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on Oct 18, 2016 22:56:21 GMT -4
If all 5 Commissioners have a vote over how my tax dollars are spent, I want a say on who all 5 of them are. Just that simple. Because you have a say in electing State legistaltors for every district. Because you have a say in electing Federal Senators and Representatives in every district of the country. Silly argument. Because local government is exactly the same as State and Federal government.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 19, 2016 14:08:12 GMT -4
Because you have a say in electing State legistaltors for every district. Because you have a say in electing Federal Senators and Representatives in every district of the country. Silly argument. Because local government is exactly the same as State and Federal government. Didn't say they were. Pointless to have "district" commissioners and then have the entire county left them.
|
|
|
Post by lbinmd on Oct 24, 2016 12:29:29 GMT -4
WHY DO PRO-QUESTION A PEOPLE HATE KENT ISLANDERS??? For some reason, this embarrassing video has not yet been posted on the QACTV website, but I found it buried down their fb page. Watch it while you can...https://youtu.be/Sh61tq9o43w.
You have to hear the proponents of Question A to believe all the disdain they have for the residents of Kent Island! We are good citizens, simply exercising our right to vote and we take the burden of all the commercial development that creates the tax base that ALL county residents benefit from. There is no lack of voter representation for the other districts of the county - they all are relatively evenly numbered (and 3 has more people than 4). The difference is people in District 4 get out and vote and therefore impact elections.
PRO-QUESTION A SPEAKERS SAY COMMISSIONERS, OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS WILL CONTINUE TO REPRESENT ALL COUNTY VOTERS, EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T NEED ANY VOTES OUT OF THEIR DISTRICT TO GET RE-ELECTED - BUT YOU ALREADY ARE HATING ON AND FAILING TO FAIRLY REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF KENT ISLAND!!! How much more dismissive will you be when you only have to get re-elected by ONE DISTRICT? It may be your only chance after this STUNT.
Amazing act of political suicide alienating all the voters of Kent Island, because as you know 'WE TRUMP THE OTHER DISTRICTS'.
|
|
|
Post by puddintane on Oct 25, 2016 19:43:18 GMT -4
Thank you for posting the link. I was uninformed about this issue and wanted to get some information before Election Day, and I was coming into this completely unbiased one way or the other. So what I got out of the video was this:
1. There are essentially the same number of voters in each district, allowing for relocations etc. (I tried to verify this independently by looking for census info, etc., but was unable to find it anywhere including the QAC site and the State of Maryland site, so if anyone knows a source I'd appreciate it.)
2. All five commissioners vote on issues that potentially affect the entire county. Thus, for example, District 1 does not ONLY vote on issues that will ONLY apply to District 1, etc. So I, as a voter/taxpayer, am potentially affected by all five commissioners' decisions. This new change, if enacted, would not permit me to vote for people who will be making decisions about me. (And yes, I realize that this is already the case in state elections. I know that Baltimore/PG/Montgomery "trump" all other counties, just as Northern Virginia "trumps" all of the rest of Virginia. But as I understand it, the essence of democracy is majority rules, and in any case, small local governments have far less checks and balances in place than state or national governments. As was stated in the video, the county commissioners are essentially both legislative AND executive. That's a lot of control.)
3. Mr. Moran seems to want the change because, despite the fact that the districts are essentially equal in size/population, Districts 1, 2, and 3 apparently keep getting "trumped" by the voters of District 4. So basically, because some areas don't get enough voter turnout, they don't get the reps they want in office... in other words, they get less votes, so they lose. I'm having a problem seeing where this is an issue... isn't that supposed to be what elections are for? The people with fewer votes don't get elected? (And at any rate, if the requirement is still in place that the commissioner must live in the District to which he/she is elected, then what is the problem? How can that be a "loss"?)
4. Mr. Rhodes seems to want the change because he finds it frustrating to have to deal with new incoming commissioners all the time, and thinks it wastes time and energy when there is too much turnover. He states that of 17 commissioners, only one has been returned to office, and seems to cite this as problematic because you always have to keep working with new people. Soooo... are the new people stupid or something? Why is working with them any more difficult than working with the last batch? I tend to think that if the voters disapprove of the decisions made by a board and decide to "clean house" or whatever and that makes your job a bit tougher, well, sorry about that... you serve the people, the people aren't there to make your job easy and convenient. If the commissioners in place are doing a good job and doing things the citizens want, then they WILL be re-elected and there WON'T be high turnover. That seems pretty basic to me. I don't see why turnover is an issue, but more importantly, even if it was, I did not hear any of them give any logical reason why implementing this new system would change the turnover. Thus this argument makes no sense as a reason to implement the change.
5. Mr. Wilson seems to oppose the change mainly because he has not heard any evidence of certain areas of the county being shortchanged any more than other areas of the county, and if nobody is complaining and it's not broke, why fix it? Despite him asking several times, I did not hear anyone cite any specific areas where there were problems for the citizenry in the system as it is now. Mr. Moran just replied that it would prevent District 1/2/3 votes from getting "trumped," (said as if "duh, why don't you get this?") but again, the "trumped" language seems to me to be just another way of saying they keep losing because they don't have enough votes. Again... the purpose of an election, right? And majority rules, right? (Oh, and also it seemed that Mr. Wilson opposed the method of voting as being a straw poll, because it doesn't allow for enough "campaign information" to be provided to the voters who too often just check a box that says "change" because "heck, yeah, I'm in favor of change. I don't know what they're talking about, but I'm in favor of change." That too seems a reasonable objection to me -- I'm generally pretty well informed and I didn't know anything about this issue without digging... no glossy flyers have appeared in my mailbox to explain the pros/cons. Will every voter seek out clarification? I hope so.
6. Mr. Broadrick seems to oppose the change mainly because he feels that each citizen having a say in the election of each commissioner will make each commissioner accountable to each citizen. The citizens will select who makes the decisions for them.
The speaker who stood up and said "I'm not a citizen of a district, I'm a citizen of Queen Anne's County" seemed to make the most sense to me. He's right... I can't see why voting by district makes any sense given that all commissioners, regardless of the district in which they live, are making decisions about the entire county.
If anything, this video might make me wonder why we have the requirement for a commissioner to live in each district anyway. I mean, Mr. Moran and Mr. Rhodes both said we could trust in the elected commissioners to do what's best for the entire county, right? So why do they want this change, if that is the case?
Thank you for posting the video. It clarified the position to me and in I believe that the correct vote for me will be "NO" to the proposed change.
As kidoode put far more succinctly, "If all 5 Commissioners have a vote over how my tax dollars are spent, I want a say on who all 5 of them are. Just that simple."
I wanted to give it a listen and give each guy a fair chance to explain just to be sure I wasn't missing anything, but... yeah. KIdoode is right, it's just that simple. Vote NO.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple head on Oct 26, 2016 13:23:12 GMT -4
There is a reason why the power brokers and special interests (even when otherwise divided) unite in opposition of Question A. It's about control -- and the reason to vote yes is actually very simple.
Currently, a candidate (or interested party) can focus all of their promises, money, time, effort, etc on two districts and control the results of all five seats.
With district voting, those same two districts can only control three seats at most (two districts plus at-large).
This question isn't about taking away your votes or representation (in spite of some shrieking interests), it's about recognizing fairness and making it harder for special interests to buy and determine our future.
Most of us agree with or believe in some of those special interests, but those we disagree with benefit just as much. Fair people understand it is wrong to gerrymander the process in favor of personal bias.
If you think the interests of Sudlersville and Stevensville are uniform, you are naive or uninformed. If you believe in a fair and democratic process, where the diverse voters of our county can all equally choose their representation and support their unique concerns, you are hypocritical to oppose this vote.
But all of the big money that wrestles for control of the county wants you to vote against. Are you a free thinker or a puppet?
|
|
|
Post by puddintane on Oct 26, 2016 14:17:08 GMT -4
There is a reason why the power brokers and special interests (even when otherwise divided) unite in opposition of Question A. It's about control -- and the reason to vote yes is actually very simple. Currently, a candidate (or interested party) can focus all of their promises, money, time, effort, etc on two districts and control the results of all five seats. With district voting, those same two districts can only control three seats at most (two districts plus at-large). This question isn't about taking away your votes or representation (in spite of some shrieking interests), it's about recognizing fairness and making it harder for special interests to buy and determine our future. Most of us agree with or believe in some of those special interests, but those we disagree with benefit just as much. Fair people understand it is wrong to gerrymander the process in favor of personal bias. If you think the interests of Sudlersville and Stevensville are uniform, you are naive or uninformed. If you believe in a fair and democratic process, where the diverse voters of our county can all equally choose their representation and support their unique concerns, you are hypocritical to oppose this vote. But all of the big money that wrestles for control of the county wants you to vote against. Are you a free thinker or a puppet? I'm a little slow... I don't get what you're saying. (And I'm not being a smart-alec, I'm really trying to understand.) Could you put the phrase "gerrymander the process in favor of personal bias" into more simple language? You mentioned recognizing fairness, but are you saying that candidates only spend time/money/effort campaigning in two districts, because those two districts have a higher voter turnout? If so, what is unfair about that? It seems like smart campaigning to me. And the candidates still have to reside in a particular district, so SOMEone who lives in Districts 2/3/4 is getting elected, right? It's not that ONLY District One residents will be sitting on the Board, is it? Again, what is unfair there? Someone from each district will eventually be sitting on the Board, so aren't each district's interests being represented? I am still not getting why one person doesn't equal one vote, or why District One votes equate to "special interests." I'm not a special interest. I'm just a voter. No special interest has bought my vote. And I guess I am naive and uninformed, because whether all their interests are completely uniform or not, Sudlersville and Stevensville are both Queen Anne's County. Nobody's interests are ALL uniform. But if we're THAT different, then maybe there should just be a split and a new county formed... perhaps that is what this proposed Question A is all about? Again, probably my naivete showing, but is this a party thing, instead of a candidate thing? Someone from each district will be sitting on the Board, but maybe not the "right" someone? I notice that everyone has carefully avoided mentioning any parties either way. I always vote for the candidate not the party, anyway, so maybe that's a stupid question for me to ask.
|
|