About that Amendment V ad..

A reader noticed something interesting about the Amendment V ad.

Isn’t it a little ironic that the “republicans,” independents and democrats in the new YES on V ad are willing to provide transparency of their affiliation on an ad, but too ashamed to list that on a ballot?

Indeed.

57 thoughts on “About that Amendment V ad..”

  1. Yep. And why do they even use names? Such a brilliant idea doesn’t need celebrity endorsements.

      1. The state party seems to have taken a pass until 2018….heck Thune and Noem are hardly running any ads….it looks like a few of the county parties are working hard

  2. Well, Republicans and Democrats are nothing more then a member of a private club. Do you see any other private clubs listed on a PUBLIC ballot? By taking the party control away from our elections we can elect actual representatives of our communities not representatives of our parties.

      1. Dave R, What part doesn’t make sense? I could break it down further but I’m afraid you possess the mental flexibility to even understand how something like this would work.

            1. Dave, Why are you even opposed to V. Is it because you were made a decision based on logic and reason or because you are a sheep?

              1. I am not dave but will answer—V is horriblely drafted…now we have this constitutional problem with Lt Gov if it passes….it limits choice, limits information to the voter and could result in one party dominating the primary and playing games to not allow the other party or most likely no third parties or Independents to the general election where they get access to the general now automatically…I want more choice not less

    1. I agree with Dave R—-all you are doing is inviting more games into the system…wait till they run all the straw candidates to dilute the vote…the whole point of this scheme is to dilute the vote and make it so only one party makes it to the general election WAKE UP!

      NO on V

      1. Running straw candidates to dilute the vote? Really? Take off the tin foil hat and try to use your critical thinking skills for a minute. Everyone gets one vote, they can use that vote for which ever candidate they want. The beauty of this is that it allows everyone to vote, it takes the control away from the parties, and it makes politicians more accountable to the voters. If competition makes for better results in the marketplace, don’t you think it would make for better results in politics? Here in South Dakota with some of the least competitive elections in the country do you really think we are getting the best representation for the people?

        1. Ask Washington Democrats how that worked for them?

          3 Democrats ran and split the vote and 2 Republicans slid through even though Democrats got 52% of the vote …and the GOP has not won that office since the 1950s….

          Plus that is exactly what happened in CA 34 candidates including many questionable republicans ran diluting the vote and allowing Democrats to take the top 2 spots for the general

          1. Yes, you can ask states that have done this. According to Pew Research, the approval of California’s legislature went from 4% to 44% after this was passed .

            1. well nobody told the voters as there are polls that 18-25% saying to pollsters they are absolutely NOT voting in the US Senate race…bc they don’t have anyone but liberal democrats to vote for

    2. Logical Joe…you are just the type of nieve voter that the Yes on V people want….this has NOTHING to do with Independents voting…Independent Candidates under this system will have a harder time getting elected….this is all about defeating republicans and tricking the voters…lets take the party labels off and run Bob Smith and Robert smith …good luck figuring out who is who and what they stand for….

      If it was about Independents voting they would have stopped there…and not taken the party labels off OR more importantly I believe limiting the general election to the top 2……..but Joe Kirby for one has admitted it is about getting more Moderates elected and Democrats…

      NO on V…all it is a bad trick, no treat on Halloween

      1. It is about independents. As an independent voter, it is frustrating to not be able to vote in an election that decides most of our elections. Actually independents would not have a harder time getting elected, Nebraska uses this system and they have more independents then SD even though they have a smaller legislature.

        Second, it takes party control away from the public election process. Why would it make sense to keep the party labels on the ballot when the candidates are running to represent the people not the party?

        It would only get people elected that the people voted for. It would make our representatives have to represent the people in their district rather then the party establishment. This is not a ploy by anyone to favor any political ideology because South Dakota voters would be in complete control of the election process. I don’t know how you don’t get that… but clearly you and logic are not friends.

        1. Nebraska does NOT use this system…only in the legislature and not for statewide candidates…also for all th statewide races they show party labels

          Nieve Joe should be your name….when do the proponents talk about anything except that Independents get to vote….they never talk about the rest so why didn’;t they stop there…..bc that is not what they really wanted…I have seen the proponents like Joe Kirby admit the same

          1. Nebraska does use this system. You should learn what a system of doing something is… they try to connect the dots by realizing you can apply that system to doing other things. This would apply Nebraska’s system to all elections in SD.

            1. If it is so great why doesn’t Nebraska have it in all offices?

              NE–legislature ONLY is non partisan; all other statewide races are partisan primaries with party labels

              CA –TOP 2 for all offices but even they have party labels

              SD–TOP 2 for all offices WITHOUT party labels on the ballot

      2. I’m just going to say that if you’re going to call someone nieve you might want to spell “naive” right

      3. “good luck figuring out who is who and what they stand for…”

        I wonder how one might figure out what a candidate stands for. If only candidates could express their platforms to the public. Someone should figure out a way to do this!

  3. Jonathan Ellis also points out there is yet another flaw in V…the Lt Gov…who is now nominated at the state conventions….would have to run independently…ie more cost and/or the possibility of having one from one party and one from another…..

    This thing continues to stink the more they tell about it….NO on V! VERY VERY BAD

  4. If V passes, there will be more partisanship than ever. Political parties will chose candidates for the Primary well before June. Likely a caucus system beginning in Feb/March and Conventions in Late March/April. There will me more party involvement, “established” or better organized candidates will have an advantage, fundraising will happen earlier and more will have to be raised.

    Amendment V will force parties to increase their organization and campaign earlier.

    1. Dave R, Can you name me one representative body in the US that is elected in a non-partisan way and then and organizes and represents in a partisan way? You are talking hypothetical, why don’t you look at the Nebraska legislature which has had this for over 80 years.

      If you compare and contrast Nebraska’s partisan congressional delegation to the non-partisan state legislature you can see a huge difference. They are both very republican and represent the same people, but the manner in which they vote is not the same. The congressional delegation consistently votes along party lines (even when it is not in the interests of their voters) while the state legislature votes far different because they are only accountable to the voters, and their votes reflect that.

      There is no party leaders, there are no party caucuses and the elections are the most competitive in the country. Competition drives the best candidate to bubble up to the top, just as it forces better results in the marketplace.

      Needless to say that the Nebraska legislature has twice the approval from their citizens then South Dakota does.

      1. N-S Joe. I am telling you what will happen. I am a party chair and we already have a plan.

        When you get back to Nebraska, you might consider that Nebraska has partisan ballots – an entirely different system then that proposed by V

        1. Dave, you and your party can enact any plan you want. That is your right as a private organization. What you won’t be able to do is lock people out from voting. As an adjunct professor here in SD, I see so many of our young people that disengage in politics for that exact reason.

      2. it is one thing to vote and have a non partisan primary in a small state legislative district where you can arguably meet most people…it is another thing to run state wide without party labels…..

        Plus why limit it to top 2 why not let every party and Independents have access tot he general election….How does it help anyone to have 2 republicans arguing who is more conservative or moderate in the general or 2 Democrats arguing more moderate or liberal…I like that ideas from both sides are debated…..

    2. By oarties choosing candidates, what do you mean? Is there going to be a convention, are the members going to be able to vote or is the establishment and bosses just going to decide? That doesn’t sound very democratic to me. The parties are a lot of the problem, as George Washington warned us, they would just take power away from the people.

      1. ILLogical Joe—you and any proponent is pushing it that way….there is no way the republican party is going to let the democrats trick the voters to the point of keeping them out of general elections….like has happened in CA and WA….

        There are 80,000 more Registered republicans than Democrats in this state for a reason…they want to be!

  5. I don’t know why we keep being told that independents can’t vote in the primaries. Of course they can; they just need to register as a republican or democrat first.

    1. And strangely, Justin Otosky, the Designated Victim of the Yes on V campaign, is a registered Democrat in Nebraska, which is why he can’t vote in South Dakota.

      1. He actually is a registered independent in South Dakota. I checked on the secretary of state website.

        1. then he must have just changed bc he was registered in Nebraska as a democrat in August and it was posted widely and I saw it on the Nebraska Secretary of state page myself.

          If it works so great in Nebraska why haven’t they done this statewide?

          a bad amendment funded almost entirely by out of state money.and supported by all these nebraska college students…heck everyone you meet is out of state….NO on V

          1. According to the Secretary of State website he registered in April in SD.

            Amendment V has actually raised more in state money from South Dakota with more individual contributions then any other campaign.

            1. from Democrats…did you look at that list….

              and Justin was one of those 2 state registered voters as late as August then

              and that other guy who speaks for V has NEVER voted in a primary in SD…Josh Waltjer…but yet he wants to tell us how to vote in a primary…#hypocrite

              1. Nope. You can’t be registered in two states at once. Most likely didn’t show up due to bureaucratic lag.

                As for Josh, he went to school with my daughter and is a life long South Dakotan and a very nice young man. You sound like a bunch of very angry old men. You clearly can’t make a point and instead resort to attacking the young intern?

                1. I see you did not deny the point…ie JOSH has NEVER voted in a primary in SD…despite being registered here since Sept 2012….

      2. Dave R, why would you attack the young man? He may not agree with you but at least he is fighting for what he believes in. He is a veteran and deserves our respect. You should learn to show some class.

        1. I am not Dave but he used his uniform to say…whoa is me I can’t vote here even though I served my country…..as a multi-tour combat veteran I find that EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE…he is a registered democrat in Nebraska…moves up here BECOMES an Independent for this BS Amendment job and wants to tell us in SD we are all wrong and Nebraska is all right….NEVER ON V….oh and burning the American Flag is not the act of any patriot I know.

          1. He did not use his uniform. He said who he was and why he supported it and being a veteran is part of who he is. That doesn’t mean you have to trash talk him. If you don’t agree with an idea that’s fine, but attacking a person is pretty low. Didn’t your mother teach you any manners?

          2. Also, I was going to vote NO on this because of the party labels but the poor attitudes I see from the members of my party made me change my mind. I am going to be voting YES now for no other reason then the lack of tact shown by the people opposing this.

            1. then you have not been watching the dishonest campaign the YES people have been running

              1) Want no party labels
              2) want no party labels but put party labels on their ads
              3) run ads burning the American flag
              4) Funded with 1M of out of state dark money from unknown donors
              5) limits choice in the general election to only top 2 which could lock out Independent Candidates or major parties entirely
              6) sends in out of state operatives to claim to be Ind when they were still registered democrats out of state
              7) claim to be bi-partisan when everyone is a liberal
              8) How V makes a Constitutional crisis the legislature can’t fix in time for 2018 as it is an amendment to the Constitution not a statute for Lt Gov…

              –and they never talk about any of those things EVER….lack of honesty, how about the lack of respect to the voters by being honest with them,…

      3. Dave R, why would you attack the young man? He may not agree with you but at least he is fighting for what he believes in. He is a veteran and deserves our respect. You should learn to show some class. ..

      4. Dave Roetman, you are doing a swell job of representing the Minnihaha Republicans. Calling a combat veteran who is doing nothing more then advocating for something he believes in a “victim”. Why don’t you show a little bit of class and act like an adult. I have 19 year olds that can act more professional then that and know that political arguments are nothing more then difference of opinion. Shame on you.

  6. Illogical Joe,

    You realize your disclosure of your job only makes me laugh. You think your position means we non-elites should bow down in deference. Just so you know, a person who thinks their position gives them credibility are those I disregard wholly. If you really had done something, you wouldn’t have to wave your title.

  7. No, the only reason I even disclosed that is to point out the fact that I hear the frustration of our young people. These are the future leaders of our communities, country and state.

  8. Illogical Joe,

    It is your job to educate them. It is illogical and immature to respond as you describe. Pandering and expecting what one expects from a young teen only works for a moment and then causes even more disillusionment.

  9. It looks to me that the SD GOP and SDDP are extinct already. Crickets from them this election.

    I’ll still vote no.

    1. Wouldn’t say extinct, but elections have become much more candidate focused instead of party focused. The trend has been moving for a while towards supporting specific candidates and not parties. Just look at contributions, volunteer engagement, etc.

      1. isn’t that what the V people want? candidate focused vs party focused…sounds like they are again trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist….

  10. the republican participation in support of this measure is greatly overblown, and largely not there at all. that is part of the truth missing from this ad campaign.

    1. I agree Enquirer and I see Libertarians are against it also…and I see a number of Democrats are uneasy about it as they can see they will get locked out of a lot of general elections also…

      Too much too fast in my opinion….but that is how a lot of these measures are 34 pages in 22…give me a break….

  11. Carly P.,

    That makes sense to vote because of a lack of tact of people who post on a blog. NOT!!!!

Comments are closed.