This postcard hit mailboxes this week on Against Amendment V. Obviously, I didn’t design this one, as it’s too small (about 4×6), and too subtle. (There’s no time in the election for subtlety).
19 thoughts on “Anti-Amendment V Postcard in mailboxes”
Comments are closed.
I get it! It is suppose to compliment the television ad. In truth it is not a totally bad idea. however it needs to be tweaked to stand out from all the postcards that are in the mail box. Remember it got about five seconds before it hit the trash.
I agree with MC. This is totally shoddy work by the SD GOP and those opposed to V.
If V passes it will be a direct reflection of the incompetency of the people opposing it.
I’ve heard John Thune say this before which makes me think it originated in their camp and it was stupid then and it’s stupid now. If not dumber because I would guess they have polling that shows that narrative isn’t working.
Weiland and Samuelson are very smart operatives who have been winning elections behind the scenes for a long time.
V limits your choice of candidates in the general election to only the top 2
V could result in 2 Democrats or 2 Republicans only being in the general election
V changes our state constitution and gives voters LESS information not MORE
V removes the party labels from the ballot (South Dakota would be the first int he nation to do so)
V is funded and was written by outside groups from NY and Mass.
V is Very Bad for SD and needs to be defeated VOTE NO
(My ad idea…get your bullet points out that people will read through, throw some out of state money type pic and have a sample ballot without labels and one with 2 Ds and 2 Rs on it)
Great idea. And also have independent candidates upset because they will never be on the ballot again.
The GOP leadership is in the tank. So are the Dems. People are tired of party politics and this only guarantees more party politics even though they won’t have a label on the ballot.
The people who vote for this will be republicans, Democrats and independents who are fed up with party politics.
What they don’t realize is that this will guarantee that there will never be an independent on the general election ballot again. (I honestly don’t know what Weiland is thinking with this proposal)
Shame on the SD GOP for putting out this weak garbage that it keeps voters in the dark. It limits voters options in a general election. Independents (and probably democrats) will never make the general election again.
I couldn’t be less impressed by the SD GOP and the strategy that they have outlined fighting this initiative.
it also limits Libertarians and Constitution and possibly green party someday from immediate general election access….
You obviously don’t have the mental flexibility to understand how the system works. Forget parties, this elects candidates not party representatives. Nebraska, which has this system has more independents and libertarians in a much smaller legislature.
Do you want an election with endless options or only two choices?
When I go to lunch I want a lot of options on the menu. So do voters. Amendment V gives you a McDonalds with double cheeseburger and a Quarter Pounder with cheese.
Darn. I wanted chicken nuggets. Too bad you only get two options.
(That is a better ad also)
instead we talk about being kept in the dark. Dumb. This should be about voters having options
You don’t only get two options. You vote in the primary which gives everybody a chance, the top two move on.
V is an example of meddling by out-of-state interests. That is the only argument needed. Keep the message simple.
Claiming ballot choice would be limited is a poor argument when a third of the legislative races are uncontested this fall. In some of those districts, the opportunity for a choice was only available to registered Republicans during the primary.
The reduced ballot information argument is too easy to refute: voters can find out a lot more information than a R or D on a ballot will ever say.
The argument that no independent will make a fall ballot again: I don’t see any this year. In fact, many of the ones against V tried to make it harder for independents to get in the ballot (Referred Law 19).
It says on the post card that it is paid for by the SD GOP. 70% of John Thune’s money comes from out of state. Lets talk about the Defeat 22 campaign, last I recall the Koch brothers are not from South Dakota. It seems the pot is calling the kettle black.
i thinkt he limiting choice is effective when you explain that one party could be locked out of the general completely….
2 Ds or 2Rs only is not good….I like the debate of ideas even if i dont agree…..
The top two would be chosen by the voters regardless of party. If they happen to both be Republicans, for example, they would need the vote of Democrats and Independents in the general to win. That would force them to come up with ideas and solutions with input from everyone in their district.. not just the members of their party.
Well, Non-Sequitur Joe,
The Defeat 22 campaign is South Dakota based, dozens of South Dakota organizations are part of the coalition. If you are referring to AFP when you talk about the leftist’s bogeyman Koch, perhaps you’d like to know that AFP offices are funded in-state and they do not open offices in any state unless that state has enough donors to fund it – so that logic does not follow.
As for Thune, he is not changing SOUTH DAKOTA law, which is the logical flaw in your attempt to change the subject.
South Dakotans are opposing these ballot measures, unlike the paid operative for V who are from Nebraska. These Out of State actors are trying to change South Dakota laws, quite maliciously.
The only think keeping people in the dark here is the content of this post card. I doesn’t say anything. Anything at all. Nice typesetting though.
This is why Lawrence and Schiller shouldn’t be allowed near political campaigns
Check out the video on YouTube: Amendment V Reduces Voter Choice In South Dakota – Visual Proof
Thanks for the info….