A legal challenge to nullify the election, based upon "electioneering" by government agencies is a possibility. I have discussed this issue here: Web Link

See also: Web Link

Yes 180,969
NO 89,643

Pay for your own recount. As far as casting false aspersions - show proof or shut up.

Your lies about ballot fraud interested in other threads tells us all we need to know about your claims of "possibility".

Hey, Hickey -- why aren't you on your way to North Carolina? There's ACTUAL ballot fraud there.

Oh wait -- it's a *Republican* who's accused of ballot fraud.

Never mind...

The voters in this state get dumber every year. How is it that California has the highest gas taxes in the nation, but there is not enough money for the roads? How could someone think that throwing more money at this situation will fix it?

I am sure the voters of this proposition carefully reviewed the financials of the transit agencies to confirm there was a demonstratable need for the tax monies, and all areas of inefficiency, fraud, and waste had been addressed. I want to give a big shout-out to the billionaires at Facebook for promoting this proposition which will increase the high cost of living in this area even further, and making people poorer. Bravo!

(facepalm)

Miriam:

"For weeks, that number had hung just below the 66.67 percent of votes required for approval. The difference between the measure's passage and failure is roughly 500 votes."

You do understand that 2/3 approval was required, right? You seem to think it was some kind of landslide.

>>Yes 180,969
>>No 89,643

The last three no's seem to be here.

Any evidence of ballot fraud, or is this just the usual malcontents with conspiracy theories that are unhappy after all the votes are counted?

"The difference between the measure's passage and failure is roughly 500 votes."

That's a very slim margin considering the number of votes cast. A recount would be prudent.

Prudent.

By your definition, or the law?

I imagine there are 180,969 voters who believe it to be a waste of governmental resources. Certainly, the Belmont dinner companions don't want to waste taxpayer money.

Proof, also posted here: Web Link

Those who support this measure are free to support the campaign with their own bucks. Our tax dollars have been spent to create a political climate aimed at ensuring passage of Measure W. TBWB Strategies is a strategy and communications consulting firm specializing in public finance ballot measures supporting programs, services and facilities. Web Link Their identity was buried in a subcontract with the Louis Berger Group. Web Link

That information was provided in a response to my PRA request, by Christine Boland, Assistant District Secretary, San Mateo County Transit District:

Hi Mr. Hickey,

Attached please find several records responsive to your pending Public Records Act requests (dated February 1, 2018, May 18 and May 27, 2018), as follows:

1. You requested a copy of the San Mateo County Transit District’s (District) contract with TBWB of San Francisco for work on the Get Us Moving project. The District does not have a direct contract with TBWB; rather, TBWB is a subcontractor under a District contract with The Louis Berger Group.

For information on public revenues contributed to this effort, we refer you to the District’s website to access the following staff reports in the District’s Board of Directors Meeting agenda packets related to grants from the County to support the GUM project:
a. Finance Item #6, September 6, 2017:
b. Finance Item #4, March 7, 2018:

NOTE: IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE W(as printed in Sample Ballot)
“Measure W would impose a one-half cent sales tax on all qualified retail transactions in San Mateo County, both in the incorporated and unincorporated areas, for a period of 30 years, beginning on July 1, 2019 and ending June 30, 2049.” Web Link

That’s $0.005 per transaction! What percent of the 180,969 YES voters thought that meant half a penny per TRANSACTION? If it was 1% that's 1,809 votes! Enough to defeat Measure W!

Uh, Hickey -- your flight to North Carolina leaves NOW.

Be on it.

And stop posting stuff you don't understand or read.

Miriam:

Prudent as defined by reasonable. When you are talking about a measure that will cost tax payers MILLIONS it would be prudent to make sure it actually achieved the required MAJORITY approval. It doesn't matter if 180,000 people don't think so if that 180,000 didn't actually represent a 2/3's majority.

"Voter" -- if there *is* a recount, and the vote total *is* confirmed, will you stop complaining about it?

Or will you be here posting about it ad nauseum?

But they did represent 2/3 majority.

Want to change the law to auto-recount at half a percent or less? Or only when your ox got gored?

The Supreme Court has identified two categories of communication as being unambiguously campaign related. First, “express advocacy,” defined as a communication that uses specific election-related words. Second, “the functional equivalent of express advocacy,” defined as an “electioneering communication” that “is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” (Leake, 525 F.3d at 282-83) Excerpt from: Web Link

IMHO, the TBWB campaign strategy is “the functional equivalent of express advocacy”.

Did TBWB engage in “grassroots advocacy” by gathering e-mail addresses in their “outreach” effort? See: Web Link

See also US 6th Cir. KIDWELL v. CITY OF UNION
Web Link
The detail is in the dissenting opinion.

I do read these.

Oh boy...now Hickey insists that he's also a Constitutional scholar.

Let's get real here, sport: You don't understand what you're talking about here. You don't have the actual qualifications to *properly* discuss Constitutional law. All you have is a resentment towards those who voted for your opponent in the last election.

Stop. It. Now. Jack. Stop. It. Stop. It. STOP. IT.

Your criticism of Jack is probably related to your disagreements with him on other issues like the Sequoia Health District, because a measure that adds taxes to citizens, was losing, and at the last minute won by a tiny margin should objectively qualify for a recount. Jack's position is not unreasonable. The optics of this situation are not good.

" if there *is* a recount, and the vote total *is* confirmed, will you stop complaining about it? "

Of course.

"But they did represent 2/3 majority."

I'm not sure they did. I'd be sure if I saw recount confirming it given the "razor thin" margin.

So says many who supported losing sides.

>Yes 180,969
>No 89,643

Miriam:

I think you'd be saying the same if you were on the "losing" side. The problem is that this measure "winning" makes losers of all tax payers in this county. There's too much at stake to simply say "no problem". Especially considering how long it took to deliver the results.

$80 million annually! Just 0.1% of that would pay for a recount. Michael Stogner said he was going to use "fund me" to raise the money but now he's depending on a Sherrif's deputy, who is depending on the supervisors. Who's going to do it? That same money could fund a legal challenge.

Recount every close election?

Really?

"Recount every close election?"

NO. Just ones where there $80 million in annual taxes at stake.

>>>"Recount every close election?"
>>> NO. Just ones where...

... he didn't get his way, so he'll set a completely arbitrary number (80 million yes, less than 79 million - no!)


As I said earlier:
>>Yes 180,969
>>No 89,643

The last three (no's) seem to be here.

Any evidence of ballot fraud, or is this just the usual malcontents with conspiracy theories that are unhappy after all the votes are counted?

Michael Stogner: Tell me more about "fund me". Could we raise ~$100,000 for a legal challenge? Forget the recount, let's "nail" the culprits!

Jack goes on with the lies: "...let's "nail" the culprits!"

Culprit: a person who is responsible for a crime or other misdeed

What crime Jack? What proof of a crime?

You are a dishonest little man. You need to stop.

Is Mr. Hickey alledging actual crimes, seeking a recount, or just whining?

He seems..... confused.

This measure passed by 0.2% of the vote required. I can take you through the high school math to compute that if you need it, Miriam or Village Victor. Given it passed by such a small margin, and the results swung in favor of "yes" very late in the count process, it's reasonable to recount. Nationwide, recounts are done on much wider margins of victory than this. The fact you're making it appear that anyone questioning this is crazy or a conspiracy theorist causes me to wonder if you have an agenda. Most normal citizens are not extremely passionate about additional taxes.

>> Nationwide, recounts are done on much wider margins of victory than this.

LMFTFY: Nationwide, recounts are done on much wider margins of victory than this, as prescribed by local laws.

Which CA or SMC law are you referring to? (hint: Hickey cherry-picking something he doesn't understand out of the code is not a sustainable strategy)


>> Most normal citizens are not extremely passionate about additional taxes.

Your 'normal' is up for passionate debate, by a 2-1 margin. In fact, your 'normal' looks abnormal.
Yes - 180,969
No - 89,643


>> very late in the count process

So it's the order the votes are counted that matter? Want to go back to your "high school math" comment? Ahhh, I see: it's Pythagorean election theory with Euclidean vote counting order, ie.. the hypotenuse of the early vote! My bad!


So, I'll ask again:

Any evidence of Hickey ballot fraud, or is this just the usual malcontents with conspiracy theories that are unhappy after *all* the votes are counted?

Conspiracy Theories –

I think the bulk of your argument is that a lot more people voted Yes than No. I would agree with that. But the California constitution requires a 2/3rd majority for new taxes. The margin for 2/3rd is less than 0.2%. It's not crazy or conspiratorial to think an election that close should merit a recount.

Another crux of your argument is that anyone legitimately requesting a recount needs to be able to up-front prove fraud. That's just not the case, either legally or practically. It's possible a recount could yield a different result in the absence of fraud, e.g., due to mistakes.

Regarding the order of the votes, yes, (much) more advanced math than taught in high school could show that this might be very unlikely under certain circumstances. By that, I mean depending on the uniformity of the counting process. In political elections sometimes certain conservative or liberal counties come in late in the process. If that type of effect is not present here, calculations could show the probability of a reversal being very, very low. But again, that type of proof is not required and should not be required to reasonably believe a recount should occur in an election that's within 0.2%.

So, you have some key math terms there, don't ya, Mr. Math?
- if
- I think
- It's not crazy or conspiratorial to think
- should
- should occur
- It's possible
- could yield
- might be very unlikely
- I mean depending on
- If that type of effect is not present
- could show

And the money sentence contains: "But again ... that type of proof ... should not ... to reasonably believe ... should occur ..."

Mr. Math, you *really* need to meet our good friend - Mr. Law.

(by the way, Mr. Law says you are almost out of time, so, oh joy, we get to hear the usual malcontents go on forever with their conspiracy theories because they couldn't prove anything in a timely fashion within the parameters of the law.)


So, I'll ask again:

Any evidence of Hickey ballot fraud, or is this just the usual malcontents with conspiracy theories that are unhappy after *all* the votes are counted?


I'll also ask again:
Which CA or SMC law are you referring to?


And let's not forget Mr. Math's definition of 'normal':
>>Yes 180,969 (abnormal)
>>No 89,643 (normal)

This San Jose Mercury News story, "BART to pay $7,500 fine for Measure RR campaign violations" Web Link is a precursor of things to come.

Here is an excerpt from the FPPC complaint, filed by JASON A. BEZIS
State Bar No. 225641
3661-B Mosswood Drive
Lafayette, CA 94549-3509
(925) 962-9643 (landline)
(925) 708-7073 (cell/mobile)

"This is to serve as a complaint under FPPC Regulation 18420.1 and Government Code sections 8314 and 54964 against the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (hereinafter “BART”), a public agency, for illegal use of public resources to promote passage of the $3.5 billion Measure RR bond measure on the November 2016 ballot in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties.

This complaint is further substantiate the allegations made in an FPPC complaint filed by State Senator Steve Glazer in October 2016 concerning illegal use of public resources by BART to promote Measure RR."See:
Web Link

I have filed a complaint with the FPPC(COM-12102018-03134) naming SamTrans and San Mateo County as Respondents for their expenditure of public funds which were intended to influence the outcome of a 1/2% sales tax measure which became known as Measure W.
Louis Berger Group(SamTrans consultant who handled the expenditures), hired "subconsultant" TBWB. Web Link A search of Respondents websites failed to find TBWB.

TBWB has a 5 step approach. Step 4 states "As consultant to volunteer campaign committees, we build campaign plans..." Web Link It was then no surprise that the YES on W committee hired TBWB, and benefited from the "work product" of the public expenditures.

The fact that Measure W, whose sponsors expect to produce $80,000,000/year in tax revenue, passed with a "razor thin margin", makes this worthy of a legal remedy. Such remedy should not exclude nullification of the election.

>>The fact that Measure W, whose sponsors expect to produce $80,000,000/year in tax revenue, passed with a "razor thin margin" , makes this worthy of a legal remedy.

Why?

If it was only 10 million, would it??

If the margin was wafer-thin, not "razor thin" would that change it? 20%? 30%?

No. Because Mr. Hickey likes wasting governmental resources on his little fantasies, like the ballot fraud fantasy of his. He literally has nothing else to do.

.

Miriam, above, has Jack's number. Jack: "...let's "nail" the culprits!"

"Culprit: a person who is responsible for a crime or other misdeed

What crime Jack? What proof of a crime? You are a dishonest little man. You need to stop."

Let's always remember what the vast majority of our fellow residents prefer:

Yes - 180,969
No - 89,643

Back some need to step out on their lawn and yell at clouds.

"Let's always remember what the vast majority of our fellow residents prefer:"

"vast majority" doesn't necessarily constitute a 2/3rds majority as required by law. Are we going to ignore the law and go to the "vast majority" rule vs. what's actually required by law?

People who don't want a recount, don't want the truth. What are you worried about?

Since the state has more registered voters than those who are eligible, no ID checking, and massive ballot harvesting, I have near zero confidence in our Democratic voting process anymore. This state has turned into a banana republic.

Michael(?) -- "Since the state has more registered voters than those who are eligible, no ID checking, and massive ballot harvesting, I have near zero confidence in our Democratic voting process anymore. This state has turned into a banana republic."

Any ACTUAL proof for those assertions? And no, links to Breitbart and/or the Palo Alto Daily (Com)Post don't count.

It's amazing how nasty people are getting on this board, and the names that are being called, over inquiries about a recount in what the Almanac called a "razor-thin" margin. I wonder why so much attempted bullying is going on.

The law that governs recounts anywhere in California, Conspiracy Theories, is here:

Web Link

It appears anyone can request a recount, but unless the result is changed, needs to be prepared to pay for the cost of the recount.

>> "vast majority" doesn't necessarily constitute a 2/3rds majority...

Menlo Voter: the vote count is critical to counter this ridiculous framing of your and others, that includes "Most normal citizens are not extremely passionate about additional taxes."

Our 'normal' fellow residents, literally the mainstream, want this measure:

Yes - 180,969
No - 89,643

Yes, the victory is narrow. Yes, it required and got a 2/3rds majority. Yes, a 2/3rds victory is a "vast majority".

Yes - 180,969
No - 89,643

Your buddy Jack Hickey should be familiar with the math, just from a different perspective, ie. a 'vast' loss:

Nayfack 12,278
Hickey 6,226

.
.

And yet again, the losers are crying fraud, without any evidence whatsoever: "... massive ballot harvesting... This state has turned into a banana republic."

Menlo Voter: do you stand with these losers whining about non-existent fraud? Do you support this Trumpian slinging of feces at our Democratic Process?

.
.

Mr. Math: "The law ... is here"

Bingo. Finally! Hallelujah! Thank you! I believe the appropriate closing here could be either: "your move" or even "put up, or shut up". You choose.

Or join the Trumpian/Brietbart/Alex Jones crowd and their slander of unsubstantiated ballot fraud claims? Which side are you on?

Conspiracy:

I have not ever claimed "fraud". I've been consistent. When the margin is this close it only makes sense to make sure the count was accurate. And no, the vast majority is not necessarily 2/3. It's the vast majority. 2/3 is what's required and I would like to see that it actually is 2/3 as required. That's all no fraud, no conspiracy theories.

Why are you being so nasty? You act like you've got some personal investment in Measure W.

Menlo Voter: I've not been nasty.

I have asked the conspiracy theorists like Jack Hickey to offer *any* evidence of his previous ballot fraud claims. Given he has yet to do so, nor has he acknowledged his falsehoods, one must place him as a sore loser in the camp of his fellow conspiracy theorists.

I just noted the irony that his recent loss reflected the same margin as the Measure W victory, roughly 2 to 1. You and I differ on 'vast' but clearly both decisions reflect the mainstream.

Yes on W - 180,969
No on W - 89,643

Nayfack 12,278
Hickey 6,226

Glad to see you stand up against the losers claiming fraud and other conspiracies. These are precarious times and I respect your standing up for The Democratic Process.

Finally: how could I possibly (okay, realistically) be personally invested in Measure W? fwiw - I have no investments in construction. That kind of baseless implication begins to position yourself somewhat lower down the ladder, while not quite in the mud of the losers.

The only "personal" victory I see in it is in fact the same victory we all get:
- hopefully reduced time in future traffic
- growth in our county due to better infrastructure (in a general sense - a better business environment)

I'd add: thanks for asking. But you didn't ask, did you? You implied I've a nefarious motive ("You act like you've got some personal investment..")

Hmmmm, kind of a nasty technique, no? My, oh my. So who is the nasty poster?

Ballot fraud? NO proof?

Go away.

And 2 - 1 margin victory. Done deal.

A summary of my comments on this thread have suggested:
"A legal challenge to nullify the election, based upon "electioneering" by government agencies is a possibility."

"Our tax dollars have been spent to create a political climate aimed at ensuring passage of Measure W."

'IMHO, the TBWB campaign strategy is “the functional equivalent of express advocacy”.'

I have filed a complaint with the FPPC(COM-12102018-03134) naming SamTrans and San Mateo County as Respondents for their expenditure of public funds which were intended to influence the outcome of a 1/2% sales tax measure which became known as Measure W. Louis Berger Group(SamTrans consultant who handled the expenditures), hired "subconsultant" TBWB. TBWB has a 5 step approach. Step 4 states "As consultant to volunteer campaign committees, we build campaign plans..." Web Link It was then no surprise that the YES on W committee hired TBWB, and benefited from the "work product" of the public expenditures.

It would promote a healthy discourse on the issue if the individual experiencing "multiple personalities" would respond to comments in the context presented. Regurgitating "fraud" allegations carried over from other topics, serves no public purpose. The fraud issue should be taken up in a civil manner in the topics where they arise, and, should include citations to put them in context.

My earlier comment about "BART to pay $7,500 fine for Measure RR campaign violations" has significance in relation to SamTrans publicly funded TBWB election campaign for Measure W.

This is not the first time TBWB has facilitated the imposition of a huge tax burden on taxpayers. You may remember the Sequoia Union High School District $265,000,000 bond measure passedin 2014. That was TBWB. See: Web Link

"M-A Principal Matthew Zito said total amount of the bond will not be the total dollars available for construction because the district will leverage state-matching funds, and the total funds available will probably double". HELLO.
Say what!
NOTE: Enrollment projections used to pass the bond measure predicted a 12.6% growth by 2018. The actual enrollment increase came in at 4.8%. There were
That's 657 fewer students than projected!

I filed an FPPC complaint. What are you going to do to "nail" the culprits?

You know, Jack -- for someone who insists that he's not a sore loser, you sure do a great job acting like a sore loser.

You're the one screaming "Ballot Fraud!" at every opportunity -- and *now* you don't want to talk about it?

You really, REALLY need a new hobby, Jack-o. Seriously.

Jack says: Regurgitating "fraud" allegations carried over from other topics, serves no public purpose.

Jack is/will be an ex-elected official who espoused the following garbage:


Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 14, 2018 at 4:30 pm
Mark Church should be recalled. The all mail ballot is a disaster. And, it lends itself to fraud. Voters can easily sign their ballots and sell them to unscrupulous organizations or individuals. Since thumb prints are now required for drivers licenses in California, we should require such identification at the polls. And, absentee ballots should be notarized for authenticity.

- and -

Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Nov 14, 2018 at 10:35 pm
How many people work for cash and don't report it as income? That's illegal! How many get away with it?

- and -

Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Dec 6, 2018 at 4:43 pm
As of 4:30 the vote has not been finalized. Disgraceful!

- and -

Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Dec 7, 2018 at 1:36 pm
Ballot harvesting, where people go around and col­lect and turn in voters' ballots for them, along with voters registered on Election Day, have possibly re­sulted in the shift in results in multiple races up and down the state where it initially looked like the more conservative candidate or option was winning, and instead the more progressive options won.



It goes on and on. Now he's all unhappy that he is getting called on his lies, false implications and conspiracy theories.

Fess up, Jack. You just keep throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. And in true Trump fashion, slander the American democratic process while you are at it.

To use your word: "Disgraceful!"

Same people doing the same thing the 2012 Grand Jury warned about. "Inconvenient Truth about the Deficit, There isn't one."

Web Link

Reply to "conspiracy theories" can be found here:
Web Link

Jack's so-called answers when called on his lies, false implications and conspiracy theories:

- (I stated an obvious flaw in all-mail ballots, and suggested mitigating measures)
- (I think this is a good analogy to the all-mail ballot situation, which I said "lends itself to fraud")
- (You disagree?)
- (This was widely reported in the liberal press.)

Yes, quite the fail. He knows it, that's why he didn't answer to his lies, false implications and conspiracy theories above.

The Republican/libertarian mantra - when you can't win an election, cast doubt on our democratic process, and try to change the rules to reduce turnout.

And lie.

My response, along with your questions, were posted in the Topic where they belong,"New mail-in ballot system triggers delays in election results for San Mateo County". Web Link

Jack's non-answers to his dumb, insulting and potentially harmful fraud claims were hidden - nothing to see here?!?

Shameful, neighbor.

Even ol Zel never attacked the election process like Jack did.

Apologize and move on.

Zell Miller was a special kind of crazy. Oddly appropriate to the conversation.

Young "Zel" above makes the correct call - apologize for the lies and move on. Jack Hickey makes all those crazy claims listed above and then follows with:

"We are all victims of the Measure W scam."

No Jack, no victims. No fraud. No one buying ballots. No one hired to vote. No illegal ballot harvesting. Just your lies, false implications and conspiracy theories.

You're just attacking in true Trumpian fashion, only he uses Twitter while you use the good folks here at the Almanac.

Miriam, I posted your comment and my response in the topic where they belong:
Web Link

Jack claims to have responded to his lies, false implications and conspiracy theories, with the following non-answers:

- (I stated an obvious flaw in all-mail ballots, and suggested mitigating measures)
- (I think this is a good analogy to the all-mail ballot situation, which I said "lends itself to fraud")
- (You disagree?)
- (This was widely reported in the liberal press.)

Shades of the kind of craziness we've seen from all over the Right, especially with Trump and even the occasional Zell Miller insanity in the last couple decades. Start with lies, and just tries to bewilder with more fabrications and then move on to more falsehoods.

Jack: where is your proof of ballot fraud, vote purchasing and your other dumb claims?

Web Link

Mnelo Voter: thanks for the link to the article that highlights the *legal* votes. Somehow Jack sees fraud in our legal process. And he still can't get over the fact that votes counted 'late' count as much as his early vote.

Professionals, otoh, see an effective, legal process.

from your link: Said Dale Neugebauer, a veteran Republican consultant, for Orange County Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, another Republican who lost his seat:
“I have a little bit of professional admiration for how well the Democrats executed their plan,” Neugebauer admitted.

Let's open another thread for how inept and feeble today's CA GOP has shown itself to be - this would be just another example.

Excuse me, I'm going to take a break for coffee and look for updates on the imploding national GOP: 17 investigations, the treasonous General Flynn, Trump folds on his wall demand, loser House members not showing up back in DC for the lame duck session, Trump Foundation folded under NY AG orders, etc..

Two years of Republican control and the only thing they passed was a trillion dollar debt increasing tax break for corporations and the Trump family. Nevermind the coffee, I'll think I'll go vomit, instead.

There's no ballot fraud in San Mateo county. People thinking otherwise be cra-cra.

Assuming no monkey business, county residents were just hoodwinked into approving a sales tax increase when the county is already operating at a surplus! What a waste! Talk about a tax and spend mentality.

Tax and spend liberals like Conspiracy Theories have no problem challenging elections when it suits them (e.g., Bush v. Gore in Florida). But ask a question about a much smaller margin of victory like this election, and they're going to aggressively come out calling people crazy and yelling and screaming at them, figuratively, on these boards.

>> Assuming no monkey business

Righties always have to cast unfounded aspersions. Any evidence? We're waiting on Jack Hickey to offer proof of his wild conspiracy theories, but you can always chime in with EVIDENCE.

>> county residents were just hoodwinked

Hoodwinked? Let's see what our fellow residents think about that:

Yes on W - 180,969
No on W - 89,643

Seems our neighbors have been quite clear. Maybe you're just in the wrong neighborhood. Try Kansas.


re: the What-About-ism with other elections: that's all you have?

@liberalmentality: have you funded the recount yet?

Hey, Liberal Conspiracies, I can't prove it. But me not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's impossible. I said "Assuming". That's not an assertion by me that something happened. Not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's been proven in the negative. Hope you can wrap your liberal mind around that. I know logic sometimes doesn't work very well.

Tax and spend Liberals like you cry foul in elections all the time, claiming Republicans are redistricting, etc., not wanting ID to be checked. These allegations go back and forth on both sides.

Yes, the county residents were hoodwinked because, as you know, they were not told "The county has a surplus, but we'd like to spend even more of your money" on the ballot measure. They were told all the good things the money can allegedly do.

>> aggressively come out calling people crazy and yelling and screaming

Followed by implications that our neighbors are dumb:

>> residents were just hoodwinked
>> residents were hoodwinked
>> Hope you can wrap your liberal mind around that.
>> I know logic sometimes doesn't work very well (sic)

Aggressive, much? Bet you're a lot of fun after you've had a couple... btw, *logic* will always "work very well". Feel free to try it sometime.

How's that recount going?

>> Lberial Mentality

Nice.

"Lberial"

Isn't that the little village south of Barcelona?




(I'll let myself out)

Where are the "objective" responses to my factual post:

"I have filed a complaint with the FPPC(COM-12102018-03134) naming SamTrans and San Mateo County as Respondents for their expenditure of public funds which were intended to influence the outcome of a 1/2% sales tax measure which became known as Measure W."

"Louis Berger Group(SamTrans consultant who handled the expenditures), hired "subconsultant" TBWB. Web Link "

"A search of Respondents websites failed to find TBWB."

"TBWB has a 5 step approach. Step 4 states "As consultant to volunteer campaign committees, we build campaign plans..." Web Link It was then no surprise that the YES on W committee hired TBWB, and benefited from the "work product" of the public expenditures."

From Bay City News Service Published 4:02 pm PST, Thursday, December 20, 2018 (as published by SFGate) Web Link
"The Fair Political Practices Commission today called for the state attorney general's office and Bay Area district attorneys to investigate and possibly prosecute BART for violating state laws to support its bond measure in 2016."

I ask readers to take an active role in urging the FPPC to take similar action against ALL government agencies which engage in such "political advocacy" with public monies.