- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
GOODE placed first in 37 wards at 97% of the vote count.
Submitted by Councilman Goode on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 11:33am.
At 97% of the vote count, I placed first in 37 of the 66 wards in the City Council At-Large race.
GOODE - 37
Kenney - 12
Green - 10
Rizzo - 6
Greenlee - 1
THANK YOU to all that supported my re-election.
I consider this to be a political mandate to push my economic opportunity agenda to another level.
Again, THANK YOU!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Why does Goode love touting meaningless stats?
Seriously, if this were the Mayor's race, you'd have lost to Jimmy Kenney and Billy Green. So why do you love proclaiming this silly ward victory stat? It's fairly meaningless unless we switch to an electoral college system. Congrats to you for finishing a strong third, but let's not get too carried away with your self importance.
Only one Democrat would have won the mayoral primary.
If you don't understand the purpose of the ward analysis, you should ask someone to explain it to you.
WWGjr
The point is.....
the winner wouldn't have been you. I'll explain that to you if you'd like, buts it's really an issue of simple math. Other people get more votes than you citywide, every single election.
Nothing to debate... GOODE placed first in 37 wards.
If you actually do the ward-by-ward analysis (which you haven't), you would understand that in a race in which you can vote for one candidate rather than up to five - it's very helpful to have a broad base of support. It's obviously helpful in an at-large race as well.
So the ward-by-ward analysis is helpful in at-large races, as well as "fictional" mayor's races.
If the value of that ward-by-ward analysis means nothing to you, ignore it!
If you can. :)
WWGjr
So, Councilman Goode,
Rep. Cohen said that if we want meaningful participation on this blog from our representitives, we should ask them for it.
Well, I'd be curious to know what your current take is on the casinos issue, and how as a Council member you intend to represent your constituents' interests on that issue.
Immediate Action
I think City Council should take immediate action on all pending bills before we are stripped of our authority in the matter.
WWGjr
So you support Ramos's CED
So you support Ramos's CED legislation?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
There are a variety of bills.
There are a variety of conflicting bills offered by various sponsors including DiCicco. If the Rules Committee doesn't take action on the bills, we may be preempted by the courts. I prefer a local legislative decision - whatever it is - over a court decision on zoning.
WWGjr
So, to clarify, it doesn't
So, to clarify, it doesn't matter what position is taken---provided Council make a move.
I can understand that, and the want not to be preempted. So, it seems reasonable.
Care to discuss what bills you'd rather see come out of committee? Again, whatever your answer is, I appreciate the candor and I will not jump all over it. Reasonable people can differ. Obviously, I hope you are more inclined to want to do what you can to re-site these things.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Maybe some backgound about the debate
for those not quite so wonky on the issue?
Presently, Foxwoods has
Presently, Foxwoods has filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court that, if granted, would force the City of Philadelphia to issue permits and licenese, etc. Perhaps even the CED legislation, which is being delayed in council. There are indications that, because the City's action (City Council that is) is frustrating the purpose of the gaming law and the raising of revenue, the Supreme Court, who has been very pro-casino in its rulings thus far, may issue that Mandamus. Sugarhouse has recently filed a lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia where the requested relief is the issuance of the needed permits to build.
Councilman Goode, it seems wishes for Council to actually vote on legislation so that the court does not preempt the city's ability to zone. Likewise, he seems to want to avoid the state legislating, again, and preempting the City's zoning authority.
It is an unfortunate situation because the true fight regarding casinos is not IF they are coming, but WHERE. I think most people have realized these things are coming somewhere. Our goal is to move it to places that are more isolated relative to existing neighborhoods. Right now, our support is growing stronger and stronger for that. Though, the Governor is not really on our side. Senator Fumo has recently filed an amicus brief related to the Sugarhouse lawsuit, which is helpful. I would comment more about that, but I do not want to draw that Berman fellow back onto the site.
But, all that support means nothing if Philadelphia's zoning power is preempted.
Councilman--would you say that is a fair assessment?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
I could support the buffer bill.
I could support the buffer bill.
WWGjr
Thanks for responding
and for sticking around for some follow-up discussion
Statistical Issue
My response is not an issue of being for or against Councilman Goode, but rather is a discussion of statistical issues in the case of at-large Council races versus more traditional races where voters get one vote for an office and not five votes for five grouped offices. In the case of at-large elections you get up to five votes as Councilman Goode noted. Also, as Councilman Goode noted, people who vote for at-large candidates can use one to five votes. A key issue is that it would be possible for a candidate to place higher in the combined voting totals than they are preferred by the voters. In other words if we have 10 candidates, and candidate X receives 100 total votes, there is no way of knowing how many of those votes were made by voters who placed candidate X as their first, second, third, fourth or fifth vote or choice. With 100 votes, candidate X could receive more "first choice" votes than candidate Y who receives 105 votes, whose votes tended to be in lower slots (second through fifth) than candidate X. We have no way of knowing. In the at-large races, getting the most votes shows widespread support as does winning wards, however I would express concern over trying to extrapolate the at-large results to a more traditional race where there are not grouped offices and multiple votes per voter for those offices. It is a different type of voting than in the at-large races.
Goode's Proud That He's The Most Popular Candidate Among Blacks
Councilman Goode is proud that he's the most popular Council candidate among black voters. There's nothing wrong with such pride, especially for the son of the man who was the campaign manager for the first serious black candidate for Mayor (Hardy Williams, in 1971) and the first black mayor to be elected (in 1983 and 1987).
But wait, if Council did
But wait, if Council did what you suggest, wouldn't that likely fly in the face of what's in the best interest of constituents as it pertains to casinos and their currently proposed sites? Not a challenge here, Wilson... I just need clarification.
No, DiCicco legislation creates the buffer.
DiCicco legislation would create the buffer - leading to another legal challenge. But at least we wouldn't be challenged for inaction.
WWGjr