Friday, November 10, 2006

Pablo picks up a few more votes!!!

Here is your updated vote count:

CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY COUNCIL
DAN DALAGER
9509 32.26%
TERESA A. BARTH 7214 24.47%
DOUG LONG 6298 21.36%
THOMAS L. BROWN 5131 17.41%
PAUL 'PABLO' MARTENS 1327 4.50%

They are still counting absentee votes.

source

*I'm really not all that interested in this. I just want to put in some distance from my baby seal clubbing post.

19 comments:

  1. J.P. I liked the previous post because of its metaphoric lesson. Sort of like Alice in Wonderland. In this City we do have almost all of the characters in that great book, written in an opium induced state by a great mathematician at Oxford. Red queens chopping off peoples heads for no particular reason other than she can. We have Cheshire Cats, rabbits who are always late, a hookah smoking caterpillar, tea parties, and Alice herself. So keep up the good work!
    P.S. Will someone please tell this old "shrink" what lol means in blog language. I finally figured out IMHO, but lol has me stumped. A free "shrinking" for the first person who comes up with clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan will be forgives for his lies and lack of integrity when he asks for forgiveness. Until then, the lier deserves everything he gets. Dalager is a disgrace to all the honest god loving people in Encinitas. Dan- you should be ashamed of yourself for your lies. do something about it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. replace forgives with forgiven in the last blog

    ReplyDelete
  4. lol means "laugh(s) out loud"

    I donate my free shinking to Dr. Lorri. You seem to need it more than anyone I actually know.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr. Lorri,
    LOL stands for "Lack of Liqueur", and on this Friday night I'm in need of POL, "Plenty of Liqueur".
    Just thought I'd let you know.
    RSPB

    ReplyDelete
  6. OK loser's here's a dose of reality from the 2004 election:
    MAGGIE HOULIHAN 13129 18.46%
    JAMES BOND 12701 17.86%
    JEROME STOCKS 11770 16.55%
    ALICE JACOBSON 8937 12.57%
    BRUCE EHLERS 8876 12.48%
    The three winners from 2004 are all within 2 percentage points of each other.

    In 2006, on a percent of the vote basis, Dalager is a GOD having recieved 32% of the vote!!
    But on an actual vote basis Dalager AND ESPECIALLY Barth are JOKES with 9509 and 7214 votes each respectively. Neither would've made the cut in 2004!
    The spin is in the eye of the spinner...
    Although Bruce Ehlers finishing behind Alice Jacobson says a lot and make sme giggle!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Those aren't the figures I saw two years ago. I would want someone to verify that bunch of stuff.

    Dalager is no god. His percentage was different because people voted for two, not three. So percentages are deceiving. People can be manipulated.

    We are not losers. Someone who calls others losers is, though. Thank god for clear minds and big hearts.

    That last poster is probably someone from the Guerin camp. Glad she's almost out of here

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gil, are you going to the meeting re the rental ban?

    I don't think Guerin should be there representing her own self-interests. We don't want her to go, and she's a control freak.

    Bossypants, step down, at least don't stick your nose in this mess.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, even assuming those numbers are right, people could vote for three in 2004, not two, thus affecting the percentages.

    Adding all the supposed percentages up, the number only comes to 77.92%. That doesn't compute, to me. Any mathematicians in the house?

    Being able to vote for three would also explain the higher numbers for the top three, too. More people could vote for each candidate. The numbers are skewed, and Council likes it that way. If we did have different people running in different "districts," then there could be runoffs in the primaries, and the vote would be far more representational of the majority. No one gets anywhere near a majority of votes cast, now.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah, can we find out how many people voted, total, in Encinitas, not how many votes cast? Because many people did bullet vote for Teresa.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey, if you compare JP's post with the previous poster's figures from 2004, Maggie, at just over 13,000 votes got only 18.46%. JP's post says:

    TERESA A. BARTH 7214 24.47%

    Remember, I don't think the absentee ballots are fully added in yet, are they?

    Percentage wise, Teresa outshined Maggie. Also, Teresa spent less on her campaign as far as I know. This was a true grassroots effort. JP's thoughtful posts have helped a lot, too.

    Thanks again, JP, Dr. Lorri, Kevin, and everybody who made such great contributions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey I think that person who was calling Dalager a god got it backwards. Dalager is a dog, Bossypants' lap dog, to be exact. Now maybe he'll have to follow some different tail.

    Hope he learned a few lessons. We know we have. Please get off to a fresh start, Dan, and don't go along with Christy's lameduck agenda, now.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Comparing apples and orangesNovember 11, 2006 2:33 AM

    People could vote for THREE in 2004. So there were MORE TOTAL VOTES CAST. This affects the percentages, and the higher numbers cast for the top three candidates.

    The total votes cast in 2004 was 55,413, if the figures posted in the previous comment are correct.

    The total votes cast in 2006, so far, are 29,479. Can you see the difference?

    The percentages listed in JP's post seem credible. They add up to 100%.

    The numbers posted by anonymous, for 2004, are not to be believed. The percentages add up to only 77.92% Also, Seth Cohen, who got over 3,000 votes is not mentioned. That's more than Pablo got, but again, people could vote for three, so that makes a big difference in the totals.

    The deal is, in 2004 there were six candidates, and people could vote for three. This year there were five candidates, and people could vote for two. Many bullet voted.

    Tom Brown might have got more votes than Teresa if all of us who voted for her, only, also voted for him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Reality spinning why not just use your real name? By hiding behind an anonymous posting, you forfeit any since of credibility in this dialouge. Losers are people who refuse to stand behind their words.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks RSBP and Anonymous: Yes, I probably do deen the free "shrinking" more than anyone, but, anonymous, please give me the courtesy of putting your name on the post. You say you know me, however, I like to know the people calling me crazy. At least RSPB has the respect, or whatever, to post under a name. Thanks though. I feel 10 years younger and will now go about my perosnal civic duty to attempt to outst Jerome next time-think I will work on Sabine as well. Now you all know how crazy I am. This State will alow anyone to get a Ph.D. and a psychologist license!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Math ruined democracy

    ReplyDelete
  17. You can win a baseball game by only scoring one run. Teresa has scoreboard.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dr. Lorri,

    It is me Sam!

    ReplyDelete
  19. We left out Rob Wilder. He got a decent number of votes, too, and was environmentally conscious and concerned.

    If he runs again in 2008, I'll vote for him, in a heartbeat.

    So there were 7 candidates in 2004, and we could vote for three. This explains the incorrect percentages and the differences in total votes cast.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on our blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.