Sour Grapes on W – The losing side reacts to voters rejecting their measure. Claims measure was ‘blocked’

So.. Lobbying groups “just blocked” Amendment W from passing? Apparently the out-of-staters promoting it can’t read South Dakota election results.

In 2016, Represent South Dakota became incensed when it was pointed out that voters had been duped by lies in favor of IM 22. They argued the voters of South Dakota are well-informed and did their homework before voting and were not swayed by the voices of lobbying groups and others.

However, now that the voters very strongly rejected Amendment W, the very same people are claiming “lobbying groups” blocked the measure.

Suddenly, the voters are too stupid to see through what some might point out was a low-key campaign mounted in opposition to Amendment W, which was mainly based on the language of the measure itself, as well as citizens pointing out that the legislature had made strides, and that this measure was creating a star chamber with no transparency, and enshrining it in the State Constitution.

But, the backers of this awful measure don’t live here, and don’t have to deal with the hypocrisy of their statements, so they’ll keep making them, no matter how ridiculous they are.

7 Replies to “Sour Grapes on W – The losing side reacts to voters rejecting their measure. Claims measure was ‘blocked’”

  1. Lee Schoenbeck

    W loss is one of the citizenship highlights of the night. Voters said no to out-of-staters using our constitution as their playground. Hopeful that it’s a loud message of Never Again. We were burned two years ago, and as a people we are smarter now

    Reply
  2. Troy Jones

    What I can understand is why all those people from Massachusetts have a problem with how we conduct ourselves. I don’t give them a second thought. They do there thing and I will do mine.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    I am one of “the people” and I represented myself by voting against W. Massachusetts money should never sway South Dakota voters; for heaven’s sake, they re-elected Elizabeth Warren!

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    These measures go to far.

    All we need is to empower the state auditor to have the authority to audit state government and federal contracts associated with the state.

    It’s not that hard. Follow the money.

    If an independently elected official (not an appointed person) who answers directly to the voters had that Authority voters would feel much better knowing cpa’s were watching state money.

    Right now our state auditor lacks the authority.

    Reply
  5. Anonymous

    I like how they say voters are more aware. Yes, much more aware than with IM22 and what did that awareness get them? A defeat. Get out and stay out!

    I actually believe with some digging, we would find that the group (don’t recall the name) that gave all these state governments D’s and F’s (I think only one state supposedly had better than a D) is actually tied to this group out of MA. I fully believe they created a perceived problem and lo and behold, they have the solution which just allows them to make a ton of money across the nation. It’s a Soros-like move. Create panic about ethics in the state’s government but doesn’t work too well in small states like SD…

    Reply
    1. William Beal

      Cumulative Donor List to RepresentUs Education Fund 501(c)(3) and/or RepresentUs 501(c)(4), November 2012 – June 2018.
      https://represent.us/donor-list/

      Of course, the organization that claims to fight corruption and champion transparency does include a number of entries for Anonymous*

      (*A note on anonymous donors: RepresentUs advocates for transparency in political giving, and we ask that our own donors be transparent as well. On rare occasions we receive small anonymous donations.)

      “Small anonymous donors” are included in the donor sections for Founding Family, $10k – $99,999 & the “The Common Wealth” organization.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.