Quoted from Kevin March

there is only ONE person who sits on the board that was elected by a majority of the townspeople.  That would be Ms. DiLeva.

think she wins again ? ? ?

Quoted from 795

think she wins again ? ? ?

I think so!

Quoted from tdonovan

I think so!

Do you think it is wise to say that a sitting endorsed dem candidate, turncoat republican is going to win next year?

perhaps you need to review her behavior at past meetings?


your slate of candidates next year will be scruntinized under a microscope.  choose and choose wisely tdonovan.  this is your chance to shine!!!      

the people have spoken through the power of their votes, and it was in direct opposition to what you and many of the repubs wanted.  

Quoted from tdonovan

I think so!

For town board 'member'? Or perhaps there are other aspirations?

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

So for those who don't like that I thanked Mr. Parisi ... too bad .. that is how I felt and I don't apologize
for it.

How could you possibly thank GP for his service during a public meeting after all the negative comments you have made about him on the Forum?  Do you really believe that anyone would think your gratitude was sincere?

Quoted from Kevin March

While this is true (except for the appointment of Mr. Parisi), the fact is that until January 1, there is only ONE person who sits on the board that was elected by a majority of the townspeople.  That would be Ms. DiLeva.  Not one other person sitting on that board (with the previously stated exception of Mr. Calder once 1/1 comes) was elected by a majority.

In our democracy, the person who wins the most votes is the winner ... so even if the person did not get
a majority of the votes .. he or she is just as legitimate an officeholder as the one who got more than
50% of the vote.

So basically - your argument that 3 of the board members did not win a majority of the vote .... is
a pointless argument.    THEY ARE  ALL equally elected and equally legitimate office holders.

Quoted from clubhouse

How could you possibly thank GP for his service during a public meeting after all the negative comments you have made about him on the Forum?  Do you really believe that anyone would think your gratitude was sincere?

First off, I really don't need your validation or approval to know that what I said was sincere.  
So basically, it doesn't matter to me whether you think it was sincere or not.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

In our democracy, the person who wins the most votes is the winner ... so even if the person did not get
a majority of the votes .. he or she is just as legitimate an officeholder as the one who got more than
50% of the vote.

So basically - your argument that 3 of the board members did not win a majority of the vote .... is
a pointless argument.    THEY ARE  ALL equally elected and equally legitimate office holders.

Actually, this depends on the law where the election takes place.  There are many places that have the law stating that you need to receive more than 50% of the vote.  If one person does not receive more than 50% of the vote, then there is another election held, reducing the number of people running.  You might understand this, if you watch Survivor when there is a tie.  They re-vote with just the top 2 being able to be voted for.  Mayb the law needs changing.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

In our democracy, the person who wins the most votes is the winner ... so even if the person did not get
a majority of the votes .. he or she is just as legitimate an officeholder as the one who got more than
50% of the vote.

So basically - your argument that 3 of the board members did not win a majority of the vote .... is
a pointless argument.    THEY ARE  ALL equally elected and equally legitimate office holders.

Well here, that is true. It just means you don't have the majority of people on your side when you govern.

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

Well here, that is true. It just means you don't have the majority of people on your side when you govern.

Well a wise person ... if put in the position of being elected without a majority .. would try to reach out and
work with as many people as possible so as to try to get a majority "on your side" while governing.

It is also true - that a person may win with a majority of the votes and still not have a majority of the
people  "on his/her side".

Then there is one more truth - sometimes a LEADER has to LEAD even with a majority opposed to his/her
course of action  ... because the course of action is in the overall best interests of those served.   Of course,
that takes great skill and the wisdom to know whether the course of action really is in the overall best
interest of those served.

I disagree. We elect representatives to do the WILL OF THE PEOPLE - not to tell us what THEY think is best for us.

The Dems in Congress found out what happens when they don't follow the will of the people in the last election.

Quoted from Kevin March

Actually, this depends on the law where the election takes place.  There are many places that have the law stating that you need to receive more than 50% of the vote.  If one person does not receive more than 50% of the vote, then there is another election held, reducing the number of people running.  You might understand this, if you watch Survivor when there is a tie.  They re-vote with just the top 2 being able to be voted for.  Mayb the law needs changing.

According to the laws of New York, a simple plurality is all that is necessary.  I don't think the law needs
to be changed.

America is a democratic republic ... that implies that we elect people to make the BEST possible decisions
for us ... not just the decisions that a majority of Americans agree on.  

If we were to live by MT's philosophy, we would still have slavery.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

America is a democratic republic ... that implies that we elect people to make the BEST possible decisions
for us ... not just the decisions that a majority of Americans agree on.  

If we were to live by MT's philosophy, we would still have slavery.

That would be a representative republic we live in, the word democratic is not in any of the founding documentation.