Wake County Democratic Party Chairman Mack Paul is accusing school board candidate Heather Losurdo of not caring about schools and being guided by her ambition in requesting a runoff against incumbent Kevin Hill.
In a message today to party members, Paul writes about how the $150,000 that could be spent on holding the runoff "represents more than $3,000 per vote that separated Kevin Hill from the outright majority that would have closed the door on the contentious school board conflicts of the last several years."
Paul says that $150,000 "could pay the salary of school employees and teachers who are now being threatened with layoffs due to budget cuts. It could mean the difference between a hard working janitor cleaning the classroom or a teacher having to pull double duty and cleaning after teaching all day."
"If Heather cared about our schools and our county she would cast aside her own ambition and help us find positive solutions for every child," Paul writes. "Unfortunately that will not be the case and so we must once again call upon you to help Kevin Hill in the weeks ahead of the November 8 runoff."
Paul has contended that he would not have backed a runoff election should Hill have finished in second to Losurdo. Whether you believe that in a case where the District 3 runoff will determine which side has the majority is a subject for debate.
Comments
"That money could pay the
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 22:39 — Apexter"That money could pay the salary of school employees and teachers who are now being threatened with layoffs due to budget cuts. It could mean the difference between a hard working janitor cleaning the classroom or a teacher having to pull double duty and cleaning after teaching all day."
Deliberately spreading
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 07:37 — woodstockWell, I believe their thinking is that it is good for Democrat candidates... misinformation benefits them more than the truth.
Who is Paul Mack?
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 20:45 — FSandYOUNever heard of him. Anyone with 2 first names is by nature confused.
This is absurd.
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:35 — localyankOf course she would request a run-off if that's what the rules say she can do - so would the Democrats if the tables were turned (and they were 2 years ago). This is a non-issue, but too bad circumstances are such that it costs so much (opening polls again, etc.).
I Think You're Wrong Here
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 06:39 — chaboardMy memory could be off but I think this statement is false:
so would the Democrats if the tables were turned (and they were 2 years ago)
Rules are Rules
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 11:48 — cmalone1In some places the cut off is 40 percent, but the powers to be (we know who dont we) way back when...made it a 50 percent cut off.. So if your candidate cant at least get a majority than she has every right to ask for a run off. Finally considering the other candidates were arguing for something much closer to Ms. Losurdo's platform then we are told a little bit of over 50 percent of the people wanted community schools and someone other than Mr. Hill (in that particular election anyway). Its not like the Tedesco race. In that situation supporters of both top candidates in the run off were pointing in the same general direction. Not this time. Anyway we will have to see what happens... and that's what we call a representative republic.
Democracy isn't cheap,
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 11:13 — DrActualFactualDemocracy isn't cheap, neither are dictatorships--do you want to pay to hold elections and have a free country run by servants the people elect or not. Finsh the election process or change the election rules, don't bellyache about the fact you didn't win outright.
The election was held and
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 11:25 — wcpssmomThe election was held and Kevin Hill received the most votes. Should be over, the rules are ridiculous. What a waste of money to hold a run-off.
So...
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 12:35 — Bob_SconceYou may find the rules inconvenient or ridiculous, but they are the rules and they were arrived at using the democratic process. Everybody knew the rules under which they were playing and at least two of the candidates from the original election relied on there being a run-off election in their decisions to run in the first place. Who knows how things would have turned out had the rules just demanded a simple plurality? The campaigns would have been different.
You cannot change the rules of the game in the middle just because you don't like how they apply to this situation. That's anarchy.
It's A Question Of Judgement, Not Rules
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 06:48 — chaboardI don't think anyone is saying the rules shouldn't be followed or asking that we
change the rules of the game in the middle
The important point here is there is nothing in the rules mandating her to call a runoff. Under the rules it's her choice. And - as is the case with most choices - the choice she chooses to make in this situation illustrate her character, her judgment and her principles and priorities.
Given the pasting she took at the polls, the margin of the race, the pasting her allies took at the polls the same day and the polling we've seen of where Mansfield's votes came from the choice to force the taxpayers to pay for a runoff is a selfish, wasteful choice on her part. And pointing that out doesn't have a damn thing to do with trying to change the rules.
It has to do with recognizing that with choice comes responsibility.
Pfft...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 09:36 — Bob_SconceSo, first of all, I don't trust what Dean Debnam says his polls say about a run-off. Secondly, I think Losurdo need to, and can, do a better job of getting herself out in front of the voters. If she can do that, then she can turn around whatever Debnam's poll said. I met her a few days ago and, guess what, she's not a wacko! I had bought into your side's story about her being a far-right type who's out to destroy public education, but that's clearly not who she is.
Let's say that she is able to turn things around and wins the run-off: in that case, would you agree that it was not a waste?
Hill is still vulnerable -- even spending over $10/vote (!!), the Democrats couldn't get him to 50%.
Losurdo's outstanding character, judgment, principles...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 08:32 — woodstockIt's pretty clear that you
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 08:10 — jeffrey1It's pretty clear that you are biased here, and I doubt very seriously whether you would be saying the same thing had the shoe been on the other foot (And don't try to convince us otherwise).
What's clear from the election is the incumbent failed to get at least 50% of the vote. Whenever an incumbent fails to get 50% of the vote, it's a pretty clear rejection of the incumbent. When you couple that with the fact that Martin and Sutton were elected in landslides, Kushner won very comfortably, and Evans upset a guy who everyone expected to win, that doesn't say a whole lot for Hill.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that the odds are against Losurdo, but don't come on here complaining about the costs of the runoff, when you're real concern is that very small possiblity that Hill loses.
Although...
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 15:40 — NoRalNerdI think there's a credible argument to be made for changing the rules AFTER this election.
Why don't we look at "instant run-off voting"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Save a buck and get a decision right away. Losurdo is within her rights to ask for the election. It's nonsensical and I'd argue she shouldn't have that right, but I agree that we must play by the rules we have...for now.
I agree....
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 17:14 — Bob_SconceInstant run-offs are a great idea. But, neither side should be able to change the rules to end the game early just because their team is ahead.
...
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 16:33 — SideburnsYet this is exactly what Mansfield wanted, right?
So what's your point?
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 11:24 — NoRalNerdSo what's your point? Mansfield's out.
...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:25 — SideburnsMy point is that you were all gung-ho about a runoff when Mansfield was running. Post after post from you, WSCA even Bob Sconce about how Mansfield would knock out Hill and the runoff would be between her and Losurdo. Yet, now you're saying it's "nonsensical" and you'd argue that Losurdo shouldn't have that right. Sounds hypocritcal to me.
Let's be clear. I don't
Mon, 10/24/2011 - 12:57 — NoRalNerdLet's be clear. I don't think Mansfield should have had that right either. However, I believe you have to play by the rules as they exist, and when all is said and done, change them later.
Losurdo is within her rights to request a run-off. My claim that she shouldn't have that right is about the silliness of the process overall, especially compared to an instant run-off, which costs the public nothing additional and addresses the problem immediately. But given the rules as they stand, Losurdo is within her rights.
My argument is with the process. I don't think Losurdo is electable in any case, but that has no impact on her right to ask for the run-off.
Are we past "hypocritical" now, or am I still on the attack list?
?
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 13:09 — Bob_SconceMe? I was, and still am, pro-Mansfield. And, I definitely gave the scenario you describe. But, I always knew it wasn't anywhere close to a sure thing, and I don't think I ever represented it as such.
...
Thu, 10/20/2011 - 13:43 — SideburnsWhy would a candidate and her supporters shoot for a runoff and then, once knocked out, question why another candidate would request a runoff? That's what NoRalNerd did.
(It was jeffery1 that commented about knocking out the incumbent. Sorry Bob.)
See previous post. I don't
Mon, 10/24/2011 - 12:59 — NoRalNerdSee previous post.
I don't like the process, but will operate within the bounds of it. Had Mansfield received 40% to Hill's 50% I would have hoped she'd have asked for the run-off.
And I'd have still found the process silly.
If Republicans are trying to change early voting to "save money", maybe they should look at this issue too...
please explain
Wed, 10/19/2011 - 17:08 — xmarkspot62please explain