Friday, August 11, 2006

Campaign Signs

I think the candidates have gone completely overboard with their campaign signs this season.
Name recognition is important but the overload I'm seeing cannot serve them well this time. Everyone I meet on the street is talking about how bad it all looks and it may backfire.
There are only two good uses for campaign signs in my opinion, name recognition and informing people of the election day.

I don't see the election date on any of the current signs around Laurel. A pity.

I was only a one-term city council candidate that ran unopposed. But I did learn a few campaign lessons from my brief time on the stump. It doesn't matter how many signs you have in the neighborhood. CAMPAIGN SIGNS DON'T VOTE!

(The picture above is not from around here so I don't offend any of our hardworking current candidates.)


Anonymous said...

I know campaign clutter is a necessary evil during election cycles, but I agree that it seems to be overboard this time. And I don't remember such large, mini-billboard signs, or at least so many of them. Maybe size matters in politics, but not any more than standing on the corner and waving during rush hour. How about a community sign, just as large, with the date of the election and the dates and locations of any candidates forums? How much does one of those mini-billboards cost to make and install? If there has to be campaign clutter in this age of mushroom voters, the candidates willing to use some of their war chest to inform the community would grab my attention - and respect - faster than larger typeface and bigger headshots.

Mike McLaughlin

Rick Wilson said...


Great idea to post the dates and times of the forums and election times on the signs. I've not heard of any joint candidate forums in District 21 this season, but it would be interesting.


Rick Nakroshis said...

I think they ought to require the winner of an election to have all election signs (their own as well as those running against them) removed within 72 hours of the close of the election.

Rick Wilson said...


That's a wonderful idea. I'm going to be tracking how long it takes the campaigns to remove their signs. I bet that there are both county and city ordinances about removing the signs.

Mike Sarich said...

No one hates the proliferation of campaign signs more than candidates. I have run 4 races and always thought that signs were a necessary evil with an emphasis on the latter rather than the former. The only race I've ever lost was the one that I spent the most on signs.

For our part, we have posted the election date on our team signs (we just put out about 20 of them tonight, you can see one on 8th and Montgomery). And I have already ordered stickers for my own, rather attractive campaign signs. ;-)

As for the legality of taking them down after the election, if politicians across the country disregard the rules on putting them up, who's to say when they'll take them down?

From my perspective, signs are expensive, generally ineffective in relation to thier costs and here to stay. As a person committed to shaping public policy it's just a part of the job.

I do like the ideas that people have posted in the Leader about having a designated place to put signs. Perhaps the legislature (with some new blood) will work to at least moderate the sign explosion.

TED said...

Random thoughts from the unopposed... :-p

Signs are annoying on one level, but are a healthy sign that we still live in a democracy and have a 1st Amendment.

If no one hates signs more than candidates (says MS), why does Mike have sooooo many signs up? I guess he loves to hate?

There really does seem to be a lot of competition this year to have the most billboards. My simple comment is that it may be protected speech; however, if you violate the rules of common decency, the voters also have protected speech - they can vote for someone else (except in my case). :-p

I won't use a "headshot" on my signs as a matter of common decency....

Another slap at Mike S (we kid because we love (or something like that)): There is a drumbeat of legal commentary from the judicially illiterate that signs that went up prior to 45 days before the election were illegal. This is simply false and I am disappointed in Mike for using a cheap shot when he has plenty of substantive arguments to put before the voters. The judicial ruling on the matter is clear that if I want to (or anyone), I can start posting signs for my run for Governor in 2010 when I will be out of office on term limits. The only time "limit" on the 1st Amendment is common decency and the realization that the voters care about common decency.

For the record, I chose to post no signs more than 45 days before, but that was a choice not a law. It also does not mean I have common decency - maybe a modicum of common sense.

As for the legislature regulating political signs, again, for the judicially illiterate, the Constitution trumps the legislature. Mike, that will be one thing you cannot do in Annapolis. :-p

As for my "main man" Mike M, I will be using my "warchest" (which I am saving for my 2010 run for Congress), to host a Reception for Board of Education Candidates at Montpelier Mansion on Tuesday, Sept 5th from 6 - 9pm. This will NOT be a forum, it will be a mega-Meet&Greet where you can converse with over a dozen candidates one-on-one. Most of the Candidates endorsed by PGCEA or the AFL-CIO have committed to attend. How's that Mike? Mike M, that is.

Also, while absolutely NOT political, but as part of my job, Fred Smalls and I will be co-hosting a Town Hall Meeting with the CEO, Dr. John Deasy, at City Hall on Thursday, August 31st from 6:30 - 8:30. This will be a great opportunity for Laurel-Beltsville area residents to hear his vision and ask questions. It will be shown on Laurel Cable.

I will be using my efforts in this regard as a springboard for my run for US Senate in 2010.

Disclaimer: All "headshots" aimed at Mike S were delivered with the tongue-in-cheek technique to soften the blow.

Remember: If you can't laugh at yourself, you're not paying close enough attention.

Tom Dernoga

Mike Sarich said...

Sorry Tom, but what cheap shots are you talking about? All I indicated was that if there is no "controlling legal authority" on erection, then there must be no "controlling legal authority" on disassembly. If people choose to associate that statement with a certain candidate, so be it...

As for why I have so many signs up, I am making an effort at driving traffic to my web site At this site I talk about the $500 missing from the wallets of working Marylanders thanks in part to the votes of Dels. Frush & Moe to forbid electrical aggregation. (see this past weeks laurel leader I also talk about the shocking snub of the NAACP by the Rosepepe group. (Among the upcoming policy papers healthcare and transportation etc. etc.)You'll note that few people go the length that I do to explain my positions and speak beyond platitudes...

As for head shots, in my case, I may adopt Tom's policy, I mean like the Supreme Court Justice said: "I know it when I see it"...

More seriously, as Tom points out, while political speech is in a special protected class, there are reasonable limits that can be put in place. Please note I wrote "moderate" not "eliminate."

Finally, although I will work to repeal term limits so Tom D can stay in office forever, I will gladly post a "Dernoga For Proconsul" sign in my yard as soon as they are available...

With equal amounts of love, repect, and fawning admiration,


Anonymous said...

Tom, thank you for your excellent observations. As usual, in his response Mike S. has attempted to change the topic to avoid answering your question on his groups "tactical" statements regarding the legality of the time that the others erected thier signs -- oh, that may no longer count as many of those "illegal" signs were stolen by parties unknown. Ple-a-s-e! On another note, Mike S. recently removed any opportunity for the public to comment on his blog site ramblings. If I were Mike I'd be embarrased in the almost zero comments to his ramblings and I might have removed the comment opportunity also. On the other hand, perhaps he is more embarrassed by his four year and five month legislative record representing the residents of Laurel -- zero legislation that he introduced and zero legislation that he passed -- now that is perfection!

Anonymous said...

Tom, those two upcoming events, the reception for BOE candidates and the town hall meeting with CEO Deasy are great ideas and I’ve got them on my calendar.

Up until this year, I had three kids in our county’s public schools – my oldest starts college this month. So of course I’m going to follow this closely. But the challenge for candidates and concerned citizens alike is always the same: how to get the majority of voters, namely those who don’t have school-age children, to care about school issues. How can we get that large block of voters to understand why the BOE election and Dr. Deasy’s success are important to them? Until all voters understand how the quality of schools impacts quality of life, home values, etc., and use their voting authority to demand quality schools, local school systems will continue to suffer and Annapolis will always feel justified making decisions for us.

A couple of signs I’d like to see:

Close up of an elderly county resident with “I don’t have kids in school, but I want quality schools for my community. So I’ll vote for a quality school board”
A photo of a twenty-something (or just-out-of -school age) with “Quality of schools = quality of life. Vote for a quality school board.”

A sign campaign that’s about information and not just name recognition is one I could get behind. Think maybe all the BOE candidates would contribute the cost of just one of their signs to make it happen? Or am I dreaming out loud?

U.S. Senator Tom Dernoga? Go for it Tom. I kind of saw that coming the first time I watched Tom present as a civilian in front of the Laurel City Council. He’s the kind of elected official (I’m reluctant to call him a politician) we need, one who keeps “the public good” in the forefront of his deliberations. So yeah, Tom, if you’re willing to suffer the slings and arrows of that sausage mill, and you can keep your wits (and wit) about you all the while, then I hope you do run and win in 2010. We would be well served.

Mike McLaughlin

Mike Sarich said...


I'd encourage you to check out my website for factual information regarding my record. If that's too much of a bother, how's this for a record:

*Over 3 Million dollars in grants secured and used, returning your tax dollars to you.

*Major upscale “smart growth” housing complexes by Archstone Smith Inc. etc.

*Complete revitalization of the Laurel retail sector including the upcoming Laurel Mall re-build.

*Emergency Police responses average 2.5 (or less) minutes

As Rick and Tom would tell you, Councils are different from Assembly's; however, I'll take your comments with a grain of salt and thank you for reading my blog.

As for my blog, it remains open and free for posting. In fact, a number of people have told me they really like it but don't post (we have had over 1100 visitors in the last month).

Feel free to call me and I'll walk you through the process of how to post on my website. You can reach me at my City Council Office at 301-725-5300.

Once again, thanks for reading my blog. It's great to know you're one of the 1,100 who have taken the time to read about issues that affect our community.

Anonymous said...

I don't read Mike's blog. I have a life. Well, at least that's my story.

Mike M: Yeah, I'm running for Governor, Senate and Congress simultaneously. Maybe if I can count all of the votes together.... probably wouldn't help.

Actually, I'm thinking of moving to PG Street and running for Mayor. That's how Councilman Casula took term limits in stride.

And thanks for the really nice comments. (PS: I refuse to call myself a politician).

Mike S: Why would you try to repeal term limits. Is it that keeping me more than 25 miles away from Laurel most days is a good thing? I would consider a third term cruel and unusual punishment and would file for habeas corpus.

Mike M: I don't know about those really great signs that you would like to see, but I do have a Tom Dernoga sign right here with your name on it. I'll drop it off. :-)

Anyway, I am contributing big to the Reception for BOE Candidates so that people in Laurel-Beltsville have an opportunity to meet them. I put some energy into getting commitments from candidates, because there are a lot of Forums out there vying for their attention. I hope people decide to attend and my money is well spent.

Tom Dernoga

Anonymous said...

Tom D. – thanks for the additional insightful comments.

Mike S. There you go again with not answering the question/comment. Although your blog may remain open for posting, you removed the comments option below each of your postings that when the option was removed, reflected almost all zero/0 comments. So I’ll comment here.

First a disclaimer regarding the Mike S. blog response to my earlier comment “The ‘B’ Team Attacks....” Disclaimer: I am not a candidate for public office in the upcoming primary election; I am not actively involved in the campaign in behalf of Mike’s adversaries that he refers to as the “B Team”; I am not related by blood or marriage to anyone on the “B Team“; I am not a member of the Laurel Volunteer Fire Department; I am not a member of the Laurel Rescue Squad; and, I am not a Karl Rove disciple operative being paid to comment on your blog ramblings!

Now the comments. Nostradamus died, a long time ago! I learned that in Public High School! I’ll stick with the original issue I commented on even though you have attempted to deflect the conversation to other topics.

The House of Delegates is the legislative body for the state and state residents. The City Council is the legislative body for the City and residents of Laurel. They are similar in that both are legislative bodies and both provide an opportunity for those elected to those respective bodies to introduce, ponder, and vote on legislation. Your criticism about your adversaries involved legislative action: introduction of bills and introduced bills passed. Although I recently reviewed the tapes of the Laurel Cable Channel that I recorded of the City Council work sessions and meetings you attended, I did take a look at those involving annual budget legislation again to make sure that I did not overlook something. I’ll stand by my original observation. In your four years and five months as a member of the City Council of Laurel you have introduced zero bills/ordinances/legislation and therefore you have had zero bills passed. Mike, you are batting zero! I also noticed that during one of the City Council annual budget cycles, even though you were a member of the budget committee reviewing the Mayor’s budget, you introduced no amendments and voted against the budget bill! I may not be aware of all those City achievements that you apparently are single handedly responsible for including Overlay, Drop, and the City budget, but on the other hand, you don’t give any credit for the committee work and successful legislation in behalf of the residents of Maryland in which your adversaries were involved.

I’ll do some research and comment on your new issues soon. To wet the appetite there is a question that the voters in the 21st should ask you to report on now. Notwithstanding the recent attempts by the legislature to put a very small band aid on the energy rate problem for my fellow citizens, while ENRON was in the back room, which incumbents currently running for reelection in the 21st voted for deregulation of energy rates? At the same time which incumbents currently running for reelection in the 21st voted to give away for a pittance, the crown jewel of nuclear power generation in the U.S. Calvert Cliffs? Ple-a-s-e!

Rick W. – thank you for providing a blog on which we can comment!

Mike Sarich said...


I want to applaud you for your interest in my website, You've given me a platform to express my concerns regarding the nearly $1 billion dollars that would be saved by the citizens of Maryland if aggregation had come to Maryland this last session & how our current Delegates voted against saving working families an average of $500 per year.

At this point, I should be clear that while I am not paying you for your services, they are appreciated.

You have a great deal of information; however, you seem to lack some basic knowledge. The State Assembly reviews thousands of pieces of legislation that is introduced primarily by individuals and committees each year.

Councils, from ours to Baltimore's, to DC's, to College Park's, to Prince George's tend to develop bills in concert with the administration and most bills are introduced "By the President, at the request of the Administration."

Therefore, in any given year, there might be one or two pieces of legislation that originates from a Councilman in Laurel. It's just the way the process works.

Rick could comment on the Rental Housing Inspection Program that he initiated being more the exception than the rule. Also, anyone who knows me, knows that I go to great lengths to spread the credit for our achievments around to all parties:

Look, fair is fair. When I'm in the House, if I fail to pass legislation, I'll acknowledge it. In fact, you'll be able to read all about it at

So to recap: Ask a real question and I'll answer it (ad hominem attacks aren't getting you very far). Identify yourself if you want to be taken more seriously. Acknowledge that there are real differences between the Councils and Assemblies and we can move on to talk about the money Brian's raised from PAC's and the rather interesting list of people that have contributed to his campaign.

You might want to look at: for a start. Good luck!

Anonymous said...

Mike S.


You made an issue of electric deregulation and I asked two questions that you did not answer:

Who of the incumbants running for re-election in District 21 voted to deregulate electricity that resulted in Marylander's now facing horrendous rate increases?

Who of the incumbants running for re-election in District 21 voted to sell the jewel of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants that was paid for by Marylanders, the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant, for a pittance?

Go to the EIA site and do some homework to confirm where the majority of the Calvert Cliffs power goes (I'll help you with a hint: not far!), what the source cost of a Calvert Cliffs KWh is, and what does the nearby consummer pay for it.


Mike, we will get to the issue of campaign financing in due time. Yours and one of your running mates.

Mike Sarich said...


It's not the vote in 1999 that is the problem, it's the failure to address the issues that have arisen since 1999 that is the problem. Issues like people failing to stand up to big energy and failing to protect our interests and wallets by thier refusal to implement aggregation.

There's also new evidence (haven't seen it just reported to me by Leader staff) that Del. Menes & Sen. Dorman voted for deregulation.

Your continued interest in aggregation reveals that your priorities are in tune with the majority of Marylanders. What Marylander's care about today are the record prices they are paying for energy NOW and the fact that the people you're working for laid down to big energy.

Of course you can read all about these issues on (it's in the blog section). So to officially answer your questions:

It appears that more than a hundred people voted for deregulation. I'm working on the names but I suspect the one you're looking for doesn't rhyme with "Mush"

By the way, to say that deregulation caused the spike in energy prices is simply false. The spike in energy costs was caused by removing the rate caps (naturally prices go up in 6 years) and the instability in the energy market caused in part by the War on Terror in Iraq and our failure to adopt alternative energy sources.

Of course, more information about this can be found at and I encourage you to learn more about our State's failure to have even one wind farm operational today.

By the way, the impact of your friends failure to provide real rate relief to the citizens of Maryland approaches $1 Billion Dollars! Think about it, a billion dollars removed from the wallets of working Marylanders... (this presumably includes you)

Now I've answered your questions, so how about it, what is your name?

Anonymous said...

Mike S.

With your knowledge and resources Mike, you cannot seem to to answer the two simple questions I have posed. Two questions, not withstanding your opinion, that are in the opinion of many others the very foundation of the energy problems that Marylanders face now. Instead, you speculate and attempt to besmear the names of a retired Senator, and a soon to be ritired Delegate, a Delegate that you praised publically for her service in behalf of Marylanders, and a retirement that you have indicated gave you an opportunity to become a candidate for the House of Representatives! Which is it Mike, she represented Marylanders in District 21 and throughout the state well, or ..... ? In addition, you seem to have a fixation on who I am even though I have told you who I am not.

Oh well, I'll give you another chance to respond to my two questions.

Who of the incumbants running for re-election in District 21 voted to deregulate electricity that resulted in Marylander's now facing horrendous rate increases?

Who of the incumbants running for re-election in District 21 voted to sell the jewel of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants that was paid for by Marylanders, the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant, for a pittance?

Mr. Wilson, thank you for providing an open forum for meaningful dialog.

Anonymous said...

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Anonymous said...

An excellent expanded definition of the argumentum ad hominem can be found at:

"the business of politics" is mentioned.

Who in this comment string is guilty of using this technique?

Mike M.?
Rick W.?
Mike S.?
Tom D.?
Anon 1?

or even Anon 2 for injecting this logic and critical thinking topic into the ongoing dialog between Mike S. and Anon 1?

Anonymous said...

Mike S.

Are you still out there Mike S.? Or have you decided to disengage from directly responding to my two questions regarding on how your slate mate and the other slate's incumbants voted on the energy deregulation issue that was the foundation for excessive energy increases to Maryland consumers?

If the energy deregulation issue is no longer to your liking, perhaps you and I can revisit campaign signs and the leagality of when and where thay are placed?

By the way, loved the argumentum ad hominem inserts into our dialog!

Mike Sarich said...

As you can imagine, I'm a tad busy these days so this will have to be my last word on your questions until you reveal your name.

The vote in '99 that John Gianetti voted for did several things. 1. It capped rates for 6 years. (during that time period we enjoyed lower than market rates, this saved you money.)

2. By keeping the rates low, it effectivly eliminated competition (no one is going to underbid below market cost, therefore it didn't make sense to go after our business.)

3. The legislature, like many people, did nothing until the problem became a crisis. (This is the crux of my criticism, knowing there was a looming problem, our legislator's prefered to fight among themselves rather than clamor for a solution.)

4. Finally, when presented with a solution that all businesses in the state enjoy, our represenatives voted against it. This vote cost you, me and every other household in Maryland an average $500 per year in energy savings.

As for the poster on Ad Hominem, whomever you are, Thank You! We need to be honest with each other. Our legislature made mistakes, I'd like to think that I wouldn't have made the same mistake. However, I do know, and my record proves this, when presented with the chance to enact real rate reform, I would not have laid down to Big Energy.

If you want proof of my work in standing up for working families, check out and scroll down to the "Mike Fighting For You" section. You'll see my record on DROP, on taxes, and other important issues.

By the way, I feel silly doing this but over the last four years there have been exactly 6 bills sponsered in our City Council by members. I have been the co-sponser on 3 of them, or 50%. This, contrasts to the 5,000 or so bills sponsered by members of the House of Delegates. It's just a basic GOV 101 fact of life that Assembly's are different than Council's.

I'm giving you a bit from a Leader article not from this week but from 2 years ago. It should provide an important bit of background.

This is why I began fighting for aggregation in 2004-2005 with our MML priority legislation;

From the laurel leaders web site;

The legislation that launched deregulation, however, will contribute heavily to the "shock value" of the price hike in June, Danneman said.

"When the legislature said they were going to deregulate this industry, they artificially lowered the electric utility supply rate and then they capped it," Danneman said. "So for several years now, everyone has been enjoying lower prices than we should have without any incremental increases along the way.

"The first market adjustment is going to have to make up for all that time, plus the artificial lowering that started out the process."

Anonymous said...

Mike S.

Mike, you answered one out of three on how incumbent candidates from District 21 cast their votes for or against deregulation and the fire sale of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. As to co-sponsoring legislative bills, I believe that your adversaries that you have criticized as batting zero or almost zero, signed on to cosponsoring many, many bills during their time in Annapolis. To ensure that my fellow voters can compare apples and apples, you are still batting zero on introducing legislation, but you explained that you did sign on to cosponsoring three legislative bills during your four years and five months as an elected legislator!

I’ll put those issues aside and get back to signs.

I’ve read your blog posting of information about the content of your slate’s sign located on the NE corner of Eighth and Montgomery Streets (and Seventh and Montgomery Streets). I visited the site and surveyed your slate’s signs with the Laurel Boys and Girls Club sign and the Boys and Girls Club refreshment trailer in the background.

I contacted Prince George’s County and Laurel City and discovered that the property on which your slate’s signs are erected at this location is owned neither by the County or Laurel City, it is owned by the Laurel Boys and Girls Club! I was surprised! Under Federal and State law, the Laurel Boys and Girls Club is an Exempt Charitable Organization. Considering the loud derogatory comments from your slate early in this campaign as to the legality of other candidates’ signs, I would assume that your slate would want to be scrupulous in when and where you place your slate’s signs, adhering to all local, County, State and Federal laws and regulations. Oh, you subsequently indicated in a whimper that your adversaries erecting signs t-o-o early espoused by you and your incumbent running mate wasn’t an infraction after all because the law that your slate was quoting is no longer is valid.


My research has revealed that you and your slate are violating Federal law and jeopardizing the nonprofit status of the Laurel Boys and Girls Club.

When the Club’s non-profit status is revoked by the Federal government and the State because the Boys and Girls Club has violated federal law for nonprofits by allowing your slate’s partisan political campaign signs to be placed on their property, they can thank you and your slate! When all of the previously deductible charitable donations to the club over the years by those honest, hard working, law abiding citizens that you profess you want to represent become taxable on their State and Federal tax returns, they can thank you and your slate!


As to your fixation on who I am, does it matter? I’ve told you who I am not. I will tell you that I am a voter!

Thank you candidate Mike S.!

Anonymous said...

Why I would waste my time reading Mr. Sarich's outrageous remarks I can't explain. The only person that thinks he is a great council representative is himself. The attacks on Brian Moe and Barbara Frush are unbelievable. I wonder if Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) would be supporting either Mr. Sarich or Mr. Giannetti? I think not. Mr. Sarich is quick to blow his horn but of course hides all the ghosts in his closet. And I'm sure he'll have a million excuses. But there is no excuse for his actions. I am embarrassed that he represents our city.

Anonymous said...

Get a life. You're turning Ricks blog into graffitti. I think Mike recieved the highest number of votes in the last two elections. Cleary alot of people think he's a great councilman.

Anonymous said...

Not withstanding the claims made on other sites, the real Laurel Election results are:

2006 -- Moe 703 / Sarich 531
2004 -- Leszcz 450 / Sarich 368
2002 -- Leszcz 907 / Sarich 617

Clearly, the numbers don't substantiate the claims made elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

The contested Laurel Election results (most vote getter) are:

2006 -- Sarich 531
2004 -- Robison 421 / Sarich 368
2002 -- Wilson 801 / Sarich 617

Anonymous said...

who is this dense? no one ran against Jan until this year and no one ran against Rick when he ran

Rick ran with Glen, Fred and Jan and Mike beat out Glen...

Jan ran unnoposed until '06

jeez, if you're going to criticize Mike S. at least tell the truth...

Anonymous said...

densee -- you need to go check the numbers.

The inital statement made by an anon was "..think Mike recieved the highest number of votes in the last two elections."

When someone answered the question with numbers, there was another comment by another anon between Friday, August 18, 2006 11:21:00 AM and Friday, August 18, 2006 12:13:24 PM that has now disappeared from this comment string (please chase that wayward comment down site master) that was critical of the reported numbers and asked the reporter if they understod the difference between contested and uncontested races.

In response the reporter furnished the contested candidates' high vote getter for the past three elections giving Mike S. credit for 2006, and others for 2004 and 2002.

I'm waiting for another anon to criticize and eventually the reporter may be able to report that Mike S. was the only candidate for the last three years and received all the votes!

Rick Wilson said...

I'm staying out of the political discussion, but here are the relevant results for the last four Laurel City elections. I have detailed results going back into the 1950's.

Now, you all be nice to each other, ya here. No name calling. The goal here is to discuss and learn. That means a little mutual respect, open mindedness, and maybe even kindness.

Total VOTERS: 829
Total REGISTERED: 11670
MOE 703
Ward 1
Ward 2
Council Raise to $7,500
yes 598
no 190
Mayor Raise to $20,000
yes 578
no 213
45 F Sunny

Ward 1
Ward 2
60 F Sunny
73.1 voters/candidate

VOTERS: 1091
TURNOUT: 10.7%
MOE 621
Ward 1
Ward 2
45 F raining off and on all day
136.5 voters/candidate

VOTERS: 1062
Ward 1
MOE 798
Ward 2
City Council Raise to $7500 no-537 yes-493
Mayor Raise to $18,700 no-557 yes-473
45 F partly cloudy
118 voters/candidate

TED said...

This is a very interesting line of discussion. :-p

Does it matter to anyone that the 21st District is a tad larger than the Phelps Center, and that the 5-10% City election turnout means that these elections count for little?

For the record, I got the highest number of votes at 19 of the 21 polls in the 2002 Primary compared to all County Exec, State Senate, State Delegate and County Council candidates... and it means nothing.

Does this election involve any actual issues? I don't think signs or past election results really constitute issues.

Let's see... ICC or Green Line extension? Which is better for the greater Laurel/Beltsville area? The easy answer is to do both. But its really not that easy - where will the funds come from to do both? Should the State raise certain taxes to fund more transportation projects? I'm not sure, but I think this might be a substantive issue worthy of debate...

How about school funding? That sounds like an issue. Should the State extend the Thornton funding plan? Of course, but where will that money come from? What about school construction and renovation funding? The State is underfunding construction/renovation by hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Should we change that? How are we going to pay for it?

Any other issues we should discuss?

Alright, time to go put my signs up - I think its legal now. :-p

Tom Dernoga

Anonymous said...

Tom. I know you'll put your signs where it is legal to put them!

Thanks for your service!

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure our city elections "count for little."

TED said...

We kid because we love.

I don't mean to impugn the Laurel City elections.

I couldn't help myself - the ongoing discussion about who got the most votes in recent Laurel elections just drove me over the edge.

Really, I was trying to make two simple points - points that would hope regardless of the locale: (1) Election history, especially for a different office, has limited forecast value; (2) it's a very big District, and results from the Laurel precincts in a generally low-turnout March election won't provide much of a forecast for the upcoming Primary.

Tom Dernoga (Ignominious, perhaps, but not anonymous)

Anonymous said...

Citizen voters - be aware that some blog sites in use during this election have implemented Tracking IE Cache Data Miners over and above the few that you would expect to see in accessing a site such as this.

For example I usually see four (4) low risk tracking software modules when using MS Internet Explorer and Verizon to access this site.

However when I accessed another site descibed here using the same access methodolgy, two (2) additional tracking cookies show up.

If you don't have a firewall, there are several trusted software packages available free for downloading for personal use.

Anonymous said...

Which site or should we just avoid all of them?

Thanks for the clarification Tom. We tend to take our local elections seriously despite the turnout.