- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How the St. George vote broke down by voting precinct
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:36 am to MrJimBeam
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:36 am to MrJimBeam
quote:
My area was a lot closer than I had hoped, but it wasn't too bad percentage wise after looking closer. I talked a few neighbors into the whole st george idea after a few discussions. Not sure if they actually voted, though.
The negative campaign and the use of prominent citizens probably cost us 5% of the vote if I had to guess. It was very effective. The ringleaders certainly weren’t spending thousands of dollars blindly.
0
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:38 am to The Boat
It’s weird that the small area above 3-29 isn’t included in St. George. Nice neighborhoods.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 9:39 am
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:38 am to doubleb
quote:True, but that's not "opting out" from being annexed.
They will be in SG (if things go as planned) and then they could petition to get out.
What you're saying is them requesting to be un-annexed after being annexed.
And this isn't a "Baton Rouge vs. St. George" issue. It's a "being in a city vs. not being in a city" issue.
I have some friends and a close relative who live in those subdivisions out Highland Road close to CCL who don't want to be in a city. A majority of their neighbors voted, like they did, to not be incorporated.
I'm sympathetic to their belief that they weren't asked to be included in the proposed SG footprint and only now do they know a majority of their neighbors around them don't want to be incorporated into SG.
They feel like they are being forced into something just because a majority of voters miles away from where they live want to be in St. George.
My guess is this is where some lawyers will earn some billable hours and perhaps delay the process of SG being finalized. That would not be good, IMO.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:39 am to LSURussian
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:40 am to BugAC
quote:But "farms and wetlands" don't vote.
Misleading how?
Because a majority of the manchac area (3-56) is farm and wetlands.
And a majority of voters who reside in those areas have spoken that they don't want to be incorporated.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:42 am to LSURussian
If they truly are majority against, I can imagine they can do exact what the St George people did and try to vie out with some lawyers doing paperwork. How long that takes could be a whole other issue, but I can't imagine a section can be forced long term if the majority is against but who knows, I'm not polished on the politics of it.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:52 am to doubleb
quote:You and I aren't communicating very well.
The map doesn’t indicate the number of voters. Just because one precinct is very large on the map it doesn’t mean it had more voters than another precinct 80% smaller.
I'm talking about the number of voters and you're talking about the area of property.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:52 am to The Boat
With a vote this close, it'll be interesting to see how the school district election goes since it is state-wide.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:56 am to LSURussian
quote:
True, but that's not "opting out" from being annexed.
What you're saying is them requesting to be un-annexed after being annexed.
And this isn't a "Baton Rouge vs. St. George" issue. It's a "being in a city vs. not being in a city" issue.
I have some friends and a close relative who live in those subdivisions out Highland Road close to CCL who don't want to be in a city. A majority of their neighbors voted, like they did, to not be incorporated.
I'm sympathetic to their belief that they weren't asked to be included in the proposed SG footprint and only now do they know a majority of their neighbors around them don't want to be incorporated into SG.
They feel like they are being forced into something just because a majority of voters miles away from where they live want to be in St. George.
My guess is this is where some lawyers will earn some billable hours and perhaps delay the process of SG being finalized. That would not be good, IMO.
I don’t think they can opt out before they are in, but I’m not a lawyer. That’s not how elections work.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 9:59 am to MrJimBeam
This map is misleading considering that early voting is not represented...
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:01 am to MrJimBeam
quote:I agree. I'd hate to see them forced to be incorporated when a majority of the voters there want to remain unincorporated.
If they truly are majority against, I can imagine they can do exact what the St George people did and try to vie out with some lawyers doing paperwork. How long that takes could be a whole other issue, but I can't imagine a section can be forced long term if the majority is against but who knows,
If the SG organizers are as pure of heart as the saint they're naming their new city after, you'd think they'd take the lead and find a way to voluntarily remove those areas where a majority of voters don't want to be in their new city.
But, like you, I have no idea if there is a way for them to do that legally.
Hence my earlier comment about lawyers getting involved and more possible delays and divisiveness. We don't need any more of that.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:02 am to LSURussian
quote:
And a majority of voters who reside in those areas have spoken that they don't want to be incorporated.
Well, a majority of voters in EBRP didn't want Trump to be president, but that's how elections work.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:06 am to LSUfan2008
quote:Link?
This map is misleading considering that early voting is not represented...
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:07 am to LSURussian
quote:
You and I aren't communicating very well.
I'm talking about the number of voters and you're talking about the area of property.
Yes and I guess I’m spoiled by other maps I saw where you could see level of support in each voting area.
For instance one of the state maps with each parish shown had which candidate won the parish in the governor’s race. They also had different shades depending on the margin the guy won by,
On that map EBR was deep blue for Edwards and Ascension was a lighter blue for Edwards.
You could ascertain each candidate’s strong points. Other parishes were indicated depending on who won the parish and if they won by a lot.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:10 am to upgrayedd
quote:Get out of here with your usual inapplicable, snarky comments.
Well, a majority of voters in EBRP didn't want Trump to be president, but that's how elections work.
A majority of voters in the USA in 2016 wanted Hillary to be President but thankfully she's not.
The issue here isn't about a person getting elected. It's about specific areas that don't want to be incorporated against their wishes when they were never asked in the first place to be included.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:11 am to LSURussian
quote:
I agree. I'd hate to see them forced to be incorporated when a majority of the voters there want to remain unincorporated.
If the SG organizers are as pure of heart as the saint they're naming their new city after, you'd think they'd take the lead and find a way to voluntarily remove those areas where a majority of voters don't want to be in their new city.
But, like you, I have no idea if there is a way for them to do that legally.
Hence my earlier comment about lawyers getting involved and more possible delays and divisiveness. We don't need any more of that.
There is no way to know who voted for and who voted against. One subdivision in the precinct could be for and another against.
One could have apartment residents voting one way and property owners another way.
There’s a way to opt out, but you can’t opt out until you are in.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:15 am to LSURussian
quote:
Get out of here with your usual inapplicable, snarky comments.
A majority of voters in the USA in 2016 wanted Hillary to be President but thankfully she's not.
The issue here isn't about a person getting elected. It's about specific areas that don't want to be incorporated against their wishes when they were never asked in the first place to be included.
Calm down, dude.
It's just how elections work. Majority rules.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:15 am to LSURussian
quote:
The issue here isn't about a person getting elected. It's about specific areas that don't want to be incorporated against their wishes when they were never asked in the first place to be included.
Large areas of the parish voted against the MovEBR tax and guess what? We lost.
Large areas of the parish voted for White and guess what? Broome is our mayor.
The good news for residents who don’t want to be in SG is unlike the tax election and the mayoral election there is a way out. I suggest they do that if that’s their wishes. SG leadership can’t.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:16 am to doubleb
quote:Okay, I understand what you really believe now.
There is no way to know who voted for and who voted against.
After all these years of you repeatedly saying "let the majority decide," you now believe we have to determine who the voters are who make up the majority before it really matters.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 10:19 am to The Boat
I see Santa Maria voted against St. George. I wonder when those folks are going to sue/move out.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News