Since I’ve taken quite an interesting this election I thought it would be good to see how close my votes were to the actual results. I am using the Secretary of State Election Results Page to grade myself on this.
For this race I voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson. However being realistic I really thought Mitt Romney would win. And yes, South Dakota gave its few electoral votes to Romney. Obama winning should wake up the Republican party. Maybe running someone against Obama that has almost the exact same policies was a bad idea!
United States Representative:
Kristi Noem (R) – 57.45% | Matt Varilek (D) – 42.55%
For this race I voted for Democrat Matt Varilek. Even though I disagree with his stances I just couldn’t vote for Noem, she is almost the perfect example of someone who shouldn’t be in politics. However, having said that I thought Noem would win all along. She has the R behind her name, she has the ‘hot farm-wife’ thing going on, and she has had a LOT of facetime with South Dakotan’s the last two years (instead of doing things like doing her job). I really am surprised the race was not closer though. I figured Noem would win by 51% to 49%. Oh well, hopefully someone does better in a couple of years.
Public Utilities Commissioner:
Kristie Fiegen (R) – 53.92% | Matt McGovern (D) – 40.41% | Russel Clarke (L) – 5.67%
I voted for Russel Clarke, as a support for a fellow Libertarian. However I thought the race would be tight between Fiegen and McGovern. All I can think is the attack against McGovern for changing his name worked. Or Fiegen having the R had more impact in this race than I thought it would.
Chris Nelson (R) – 67.03% | Nick Nemec (D) – 32.97%
This second PUC race was no surprise. Actually I thought Chris Nelson would get over 75% of the votes.
Referred Law 14 – Large Project Development Fund: NO 57.63%
I voted no on this and am not surprised it lost. Giving the governor’s office free reign to corporate welfare to hand out is just bad policy.
Referred Law 16 – Random Misguided Education Changes: NO 67.23%
I voted no and have been against this RL since I first read it. It is so random that it just had to fail.
Initiated Measure 15 – 1% Sales Tax Increase: NO 56.72%
I voted no and have been opposed to the large tax increase this represents. However I am surprised it was not a more overwhelming vote for no.
Constitutional Amendment M – Update Constitutional Language for Corporations: NO 70.40%
No surprise this lost. I voted no because there was no ‘con’ was published and the language of this question was too vague for the average person to care about.
Constitutional Amendment N – Remove Travel Reimbursement Restrictions: NO 63.17%
I voted no because SoS Gant didn’t provide a con. However it probably lost because few understood what this issue is about. I seen someone say (maybe tweet) last night that next time they should change the language to “Have the legislatures get travel reimbursed the same way any government employee does”. That would probably have passed.
Constitutional Amendment O – Distributions from Cement Plant Trust Fund: YES 56..77%
I voted no because no con was provided by SoS Gant. However it is not surprising this won. At its face value this may be a good amendment.
Constitutional Amendment P – Balanced Budget: YES 64.60%
I voted no because no con was provided by SoS Gant. I knew this would win based purely upon its name. My only question, now that it has won will a legislature that was opposed to this and fought to get a con provided legally challenge this?
Supreme Court Retention – Justice Glen A. Severson: YES – 80.18%
I voted against him because of the South Dakota Supreme Court refusing to hear an important Hutterite case based on freedom of religion. However since most people don’t care about this type of ballot issue I figured it would pass with no problem.
Overall I’ll give myself a C for calling this election. I called a lot of the ballot issues, but honestly those were easy to call. The part that surprised me was the legislative and other politician votes: I really underestimated just how RED South Dakota is. I think in other states candidates such as Varelik would have been a contender.
South Dakota Secretary of State Jason Gant released the 2012 voter registration numbers as of November 5, 2012. I have included the Nov 1, 2011 numbers in the table below to see how things have changed in a year.
Overall the changes are not huge. But the Democratic Party appears to have added only 170 registered voters; while the Republican Party added 7,933 registered voters. Considering South Dakota is a “red” state these numbers are not surprising. However the number of voter registrations choosing “Independent” grew by 6,696. The number of registered independent voters almost matches the numbers added by the Republican Party.
Statistics for the ‘battleground states’ show that the Democratic Party is losing number like this to Independents. The battleground states are also losing ground in the Republican Party; but they are losing a tenth of the numbers the Democratic Party is losing.
Hopefully this trend continues. If enough of the country starts to identify as independent it gives me hope that third-party candidates will get more votes. All it takes is for people to realize that its better to vote for a real candidate you believe in; as opposed to the current ‘lesser of two evil’ approach taken by many now.
Previously I posted a summary of my votes for the South Dakota 2012 Ballot Questions. Since that time I have changed my mind on the four constitutional amendments (thanks to Gant) and added my opinion about the SD Supreme Court retention of Justice Glen A. Severson. It will be very easy for me when going to the polls this November 6, I will be voting NO on every yes/no question Following is my votes for each of the questions and a link to my reason why:
- NO – Referred Law 14 – Large Project Development Fund
- NO – Referred Law 16 – Random Misguided Education Changes
- NO – Initiated Measure 15 – 1% Sales Tax Increase
- NO – Constitutional Amendment M (Reason for changing to NO) – Update Constitutional Language for Corporations
- NO – Constitutional Amendment N (Reason for changing to NO)– Remove Travel Reimbursement Restrictions
- NO – Constitutional Amendment O (Reason for changing to NO)– Distributions from Cement Plant Trust Fund
- NO – Constitutional Amendment P (Reason for changing to NO)– Balanced Budget
- NO – Supreme Court Retention – SD Supreme Court retention of Justice Glen A. Severson
All I can say is November 6 will be a “Just Say NO” day for me.
Whats crazy to me is neither the Democratic or Republican candidates even campaign on peace.
From a libertarian point of view this was a bad debate. Looking at my notes (tweets) one comment sticks out: “I lost track, which of these two is the war-hawk?” It was clear neither was a candidate of peace. But I do think in the end Obama came off as a bigger war-hawk.
Other than that both candidates kept bringing the foreign policy debate back to domestic issues. I won’t even review my tweets on this one. Simply put this debate was a disaster for anyone that believe is liberty and peace. My final tweet sums it up best “I for one am glad I should never have to see Obama or Romney debate again!”
Told ya, brief! I’m too disgusted to say more.
In reviewing the ballot issues in South Dakota I finally decided to look at the SD Supreme Court retention of Justice Glen A. Severson representing the Second Supreme Court District. I will definitely vote NO on this retention and ask others to do the same. Why would I vote no? Simply because of one key case the SD Supreme Court decided to overrule the circuit court: Wipf v Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc (PDF).
I won’t go into the very long story and facts behind this case. However the Supreme Court chose to accept and hide behind “freedom of religion” in a corporate case that has nothing to do with religion. This nut-less move by the justices has left many good people in a very bad position. Many good men and women waited patiently (even while still being persecuted) for justice to be served. Sadly this never happened. The SD Supreme Court decided persecution of people is OK if done in the name of religion, even if corporate laws are being broke.
I’ll stop there. I could keep going, but honestly it would take me a whole book to discuss this issue at the level it deserves. So, in summary I will vote no to the retention of Justice Glen A. Severson because of this final line in Wipf v Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc:
[¶29.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and ZINTER, SEVERSON, and WILBUR, Justices, concur.
I really think this is worth looking at for anyone tired of both Obama and Romney. I won’t add much because I think the table speaks for itself.