5 ms·

Which is probably exactly why a Libertarian got elected. It’s rare for a libertarian to get elected, even more so in a write-in scenario.

shadowgovt 5y ago
It was an off-season election (i.e. no Congress people or presidents up for election), which usually have an order of magnitude smaller turnout. That's the best opportunity for a dedicated candidate to rally enough support to get elected even if they aren't one of the two major parties, especially to a relatively small potatoes office like this.
throwawaygh 5y ago
- fallingknife 5y ago
  It doesn't matter how many votes he got, only that he won. Would hardly call refusing to seat an elected official a "molehill."
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I agree - though if it is just a few local officials acting foolishly, and who will soon be put in their place, then there's nothing much to worry about. Society can handle a few dummies acting in character. If, on the other hand, it was happening more broadly - say, for example, a national election, with officials at the highest level of government acting in this way - then there would be much greater cause for concern.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    And where did they refuse? It's a dumbass game of telephone. Idiocracy incarnate.
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  Honestly, refusing to allow any duly elected official to be sworn into office and do their job as specified by law, whatever it is, is far more mountain than molehill regardless of the nature of the job or the qualifications of the person elected. You are of course right that a CPA is a better choice for auditor than a non-accountant. But that's either an argument to the state legislature to change how the position is chosen (e.g. making it an appointment with professional qualification requirements) or an argument to the voters to elect a CPA (assuming one chooses to run). It's not an argument to flout the system as designed by duly elected legislators and illegitimately shove aside the candidate duly elected by the voters.
  - throwawaygh 5y ago
    > refusing... flout the system My whole point is that these are bad takes. What gives you the impression that they refused? Where, anywhere, in this thread, is there an actual refusal? I don't think they refused. I think it just didn't happen yet because people wrongly assumed it wasn't necessary. I think it's all a silly game of telephone gone bat-shit wrong and then blown up into a huge fucking deal for no reason other than internet drama. My interpretation: 1. The author asked the Supervisors about swearing him in. They genuinely have no clue what to do and suggest picking this up at the next meeting. 2. The Supervisors (elected) asked the City Manager (employee) about this in their weekly meeting. 3. City Manager sends an email saying that since they retained a CPA firm there's nothing for the author to do. Likely the City Manager's sincere understanding of state statute. Notice that the email DOESN'T EVEN STATE THAT THEY WON'T SWEAR HIM IN! Just that he's not needed. Which is not entirely correct but also definitely not incorrect. 4. Supervisors (wrongly) assume that the author is operating in good faith and that hearing that his main volunteer task has been outsourced to a reputable firm is end-of-story. Case-in-point: I'd LOVE to hear from the author if he reply-all'd to that email with "Great, thanks! I'd still like to be sworn in! Does the next meeting work for everyone?" After hearing from the City Manager, did he go ahead and ask to be sworn in anyways? Or did he start his social media campaign? I think there's just genuine confusion on the part of a bunch of part-time city admins about who this dude is and how they're supposed to interact with him, given that they are already paying a CPA to do his only job. My prediction for the future: I don't think there's a genuine refusal to swear him in, just confusion and/or incompetence. So now that this whole thing blew up on social media this dude will be sworn in ASAP. And then... nothing. Because the alternative is that a sizable accounting firm fucked up big time and/or accepted kickbacks from a tiny township, which doesn't seem likely. My meta-prediction: bat-shit malcontents are running for local office in droves, and every aspect of local government is going to become insane and dynfunctional until the entire country collapses under the weight of incompetents with massive egos. (Note that the CPA is not a rando from the town -- it's a mid-sized firm that is specializes in single audits and has its offices in a major metro. There is probably nothing that a corrupt official in a dinky township could offer a Principal at a mid-sized audit firm to fake or lie on an audit.)
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  > He was literally the only guy with more than a single digit number of votes, and won with 200 odd votes. So he was elected almost unanimously?

shadowgovt 5y ago

It was an off-season election (i.e. no Congress people or presidents up for election), which usually have an order of magnitude smaller turnout. That's the best opportunity for a dedicated candidate to rally enough support to get elected even if they aren't one of the two major parties, especially to a relatively small potatoes office like this.

throwawaygh 5y ago

fallingknife 5y ago
It doesn't matter how many votes he got, only that he won. Would hardly call refusing to seat an elected official a "molehill."
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I agree - though if it is just a few local officials acting foolishly, and who will soon be put in their place, then there's nothing much to worry about. Society can handle a few dummies acting in character. If, on the other hand, it was happening more broadly - say, for example, a national election, with officials at the highest level of government acting in this way - then there would be much greater cause for concern.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  And where did they refuse? It's a dumbass game of telephone. Idiocracy incarnate.
jkaplowitz 5y ago
Honestly, refusing to allow any duly elected official to be sworn into office and do their job as specified by law, whatever it is, is far more mountain than molehill regardless of the nature of the job or the qualifications of the person elected. You are of course right that a CPA is a better choice for auditor than a non-accountant. But that's either an argument to the state legislature to change how the position is chosen (e.g. making it an appointment with professional qualification requirements) or an argument to the voters to elect a CPA (assuming one chooses to run). It's not an argument to flout the system as designed by duly elected legislators and illegitimately shove aside the candidate duly elected by the voters.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > refusing... flout the system My whole point is that these are bad takes. What gives you the impression that they refused? Where, anywhere, in this thread, is there an actual refusal? I don't think they refused. I think it just didn't happen yet because people wrongly assumed it wasn't necessary. I think it's all a silly game of telephone gone bat-shit wrong and then blown up into a huge fucking deal for no reason other than internet drama. My interpretation: 1. The author asked the Supervisors about swearing him in. They genuinely have no clue what to do and suggest picking this up at the next meeting. 2. The Supervisors (elected) asked the City Manager (employee) about this in their weekly meeting. 3. City Manager sends an email saying that since they retained a CPA firm there's nothing for the author to do. Likely the City Manager's sincere understanding of state statute. Notice that the email DOESN'T EVEN STATE THAT THEY WON'T SWEAR HIM IN! Just that he's not needed. Which is not entirely correct but also definitely not incorrect. 4. Supervisors (wrongly) assume that the author is operating in good faith and that hearing that his main volunteer task has been outsourced to a reputable firm is end-of-story. Case-in-point: I'd LOVE to hear from the author if he reply-all'd to that email with "Great, thanks! I'd still like to be sworn in! Does the next meeting work for everyone?" After hearing from the City Manager, did he go ahead and ask to be sworn in anyways? Or did he start his social media campaign? I think there's just genuine confusion on the part of a bunch of part-time city admins about who this dude is and how they're supposed to interact with him, given that they are already paying a CPA to do his only job. My prediction for the future: I don't think there's a genuine refusal to swear him in, just confusion and/or incompetence. So now that this whole thing blew up on social media this dude will be sworn in ASAP. And then... nothing. Because the alternative is that a sizable accounting firm fucked up big time and/or accepted kickbacks from a tiny township, which doesn't seem likely. My meta-prediction: bat-shit malcontents are running for local office in droves, and every aspect of local government is going to become insane and dynfunctional until the entire country collapses under the weight of incompetents with massive egos. (Note that the CPA is not a rando from the town -- it's a mid-sized firm that is specializes in single audits and has its offices in a major metro. There is probably nothing that a corrupt official in a dinky township could offer a Principal at a mid-sized audit firm to fake or lie on an audit.)
sgjohnson 5y ago
> He was literally the only guy with more than a single digit number of votes, and won with 200 odd votes. So he was elected almost unanimously?