Follow this link to learn why you should write in Doug Kilgore and Lori Mitrick for Commissioner.
http://www.yorkcountyfirst.org/index/

This link provides instructions on how to do it.  Print it out and bring with you to the polls.  Print extras for your friends!
http://yorkcountyfirst.org/Downloads/YCF_WriteIn_Instructions.pdf

Check out the unprecedented endorsement by the York Daily Record for a write-in campaign!  This definitley says something about the official slate of candidates when the editorial board can find no one on it to support.

http://www.ydr.com/editorial/ci_7302624

Write ins are easy with electronic machines:  http://www.ydr.com/newsfull/ci_7311343

See post above for link to instructions on how to write in Mitrick and Kilgore.

Remember to vote tomorrow!

I am trying to figure out why they ended up not being on the ballot and had to be write-in candidates.

Can somebody ‘splain?

Thanks.

They lost in the primary.

That simple, huh? 

So they were incumbants who lost the primary then decided to run as write-ins…

Thanks.

Sometimes things in life are actually simple! I was surprised at the number of write in votes cast - while not enough to turn the election in their favor, it was an impressive amount. Normally write ins don’t stand a chance.

Alex - 08 November 2007 10:47 AM

Sometimes things in life are actually simple! I was surprised at the number of write in votes cast - while not enough to turn the election in their favor, it was an impressive amount. Normally write ins don’t stand a chance.

I don’t understand how, if you can’t win your party’s primary, you think you can win as a write-in.  It seems to me you would just split the vote of your party.

They didn’t do a bad job with their write-in campaign.  It makes a point to the other contenders that just because you’ve won your parties nomination (things can change in a few months between primary/general) that you’re not a guaranteed lock to win.  The write-ins came within a few thousand votes of the winners.  It wasn’t a landslide by far.  Remember Joe Lieberman’s successful win in CT?  He lost his party’s nomination, filed as an independent (OK, not a write-in), and won.

It is not out of the question to lose a primary and win the general… primary elections are usually poorly attended. If your opponwnr campaigned hard on an issue that was very controversial (Lauxmont for example) they could pull enough votes to win the primary but maybe they are not strong enough against the other parties candidates for the general election.

Also, maybe over the months between the primary and general election, new information comes to light showing you in a more favorable light.

What I do know is this: turnout as always was poor. What is most irritating is that the ones that don’t vote bitch the most.

Alex - 08 November 2007 05:31 PM

What I do know is this: turnout as always was poor. What is most irritating is that the ones that don’t vote bitch the most.

Amen to that!

Alex - 08 November 2007 05:31 PM

What I do know is this: turnout as always was poor. What is most irritating is that the ones that don’t vote bitch the most.

I know!!  You shouldn’t be able to bitch until you get your “I Voted” sticker!!

I don’t understand how, if you can’t win your party’s primary, you think you can win as a write-in.  It seems to me you would just split the vote of your party.

You’re right. According to the local newspapers neither party’s chair was pleased with the Mitrick/Kilgore write-in ticket. Looking at the results the write-in ticket hurt one of the democratic candidates more than either of the republican candidates.

JH - 23 November 2007 08:01 PM

I don’t understand how, if you can’t win your party’s primary, you think you can win as a write-in.  It seems to me you would just split the vote of your party.

You’re right. According to the local newspapers neither party’s chair was pleased with the Mitrick/Kilgore write-in ticket. Looking at the results the write-in ticket hurt one of the democratic candidates more than either of the republican candidates.

It’s not necessarily about what the party chair wants.  It’s been shown in the past, the voters don’t always agree with the party heads.

I personally think that if they received that large a portion of the votes, the party chairs ought to look at why. Obviously, a lot of people weren’t happy with the other candidates.

I agree. Look at the recent presidential elections - no landslides. You can’t really count the BS electoral vote. Look at the popular vote. It is very telling - we are not a nation of 1 thought - we are a nation of many thoughts.

Popular vote counts in elections…
1860 Lincoln 40%, Breckenridge 18%, Bell 13%, Douglas 30%
1864 Lincoln 55%, McClellan 45%
1868 Grant 53%, Seymour 47%
1872 Grant 56%, Greeley 44%
1876 Hayes 47.9%, Tilden 51.0%—Hayes loses popular vote but wins electoral vote by 1
1880 Garfield 48.3%, Hancock 48.3%—Tied but Garfield wins electoral vote
1884 Cleveland 48.5%, Blaine 48.2%
1888 Harrison 47.8%, Cleveland 48.6%—Harrison loses the popular vote but wins electoral vote
1892 Cleveland 46%, Harrison 43%, Weaver 9%
1896 McKinley 51%, Parker 47%
1900 McKinley 52%, Parker 46%
1904 T Roosevelt 56, Parker 38%
1908 Taft 52%, Bryan 43%
1912 Wilson 47%, T Roosevelt 27%, Taft 23%
1916 Wilson 49%, Hughes 46%
1920 Harding 60%, Cox 34%—largest popular vote margin
1924 Coolidge 54%, Davis 29%, LaFollette 17%
1928 Hoover 58%, Smith 41%
1932 Roosevelt 57%, Hoover 40%
1936 Roosevelt 61%, Landon 37%
1940 Roosevelt 55%, Willkie 45%
1944 Roosevelt 53%, Dewey 46%
1948 Truman 50%, Dewey 45%, Thurmond 2%
1952 Eisenhower 55%, Stevenson 44%
1956 Eisenhower 57%, Stevenson 42%
1960 Kennedy 49.7%, Nixon 49.5%
1964 Johnson 61%, Goldwater 39%
1968 Nixon 43.4%, Humphry 42.7%, Wallace 13.5%
1972 Nixon 61%, McGovern 38%
1976 Carter 50%, Ford 48%
1980 Reagan 51%, Carter 41%
1984 Reagan 59%, Mondale 41%
1988 Bush 53%, Dukakis 46%
1992 Clinton 43%, Bush 37%, Perot 19%—Clinton wins without a popular vote majority
1996 Clinton 49%, Dole 41%, Perot 8%—Clinton wins without a popular vote majority
2000 Bush 47.9%, Gore 48.4%—Gore wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote
2004 Bush 51%, Kerry 48%

Look at how few of the elections were landslides. Not many at all. Look at how many were decided by electoral votes, not popular votes. Prior to 1860 there were more landslides in the popular vote but mainly because there was a lack of ability to communicate your position or campaign. Most campaigns were won by attacking large population centers. Heck, the first few US elections had less than 100,000 voters.