|
Post by pithecanthropus on Nov 15, 2012 19:49:05 GMT -8
Don't head to Vegas anytime soon Nostradamus. Pure gold! May I have your permission to use this?
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 21, 2012 7:11:07 GMT -8
The last two updates show the following: 130,063 additional votes were counted, of those, 112,383 voted on Measure J. So about 86.4% of people voting voted on J. There are 215,991 ballots left to count, so 86.4% of those would tell you that there are maybe another 186,616 total votes (yes/no) still to be counted for J.
If you add the 186,616 left to the current totals of 1,708,569 and 906,545 you get a final total vote count of 2,801,730. Since J needs 2/3 you are looking at a required final Yes count of 1,867,829. That means you need another 159,260 Yes votes out of the projected 186,616 J votes remaining to be counted, or about 87.6%. Not going to happen.
Based on the latest numbers provided, 71.4% of the recent additions voted Yes on J. If you take 71.4% of the projected 186,616 J votes left, you get 133,243 more Yes votes and 53,373 No votes. That gives you final totals of:
Yes: 1,841,812 or 65.738% No: 959,918
Needed 25,017 of the No voters to have voted Yes. Close but no Cigar…
RT
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 21, 2012 10:21:27 GMT -8
Okay, seriously, this is getting so close its getting ridiculous. At what point should you realistically conclude that a measure got the majority support?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 21, 2012 11:00:47 GMT -8
Okay, seriously, this is getting so close its getting ridiculous. At what point should you realistically conclude that a measure got the majority support? I hate to say it, but it is going to lose. Probably by less than one % though. You may remember we had a President selected by less than 600 votes back in 2000. Close doesn't really count.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 21, 2012 11:13:05 GMT -8
Don't head to Vegas anytime soon Nostradamus. Pure gold! May I have your permission to use this? Sure. I don't think I would ever get paid for my writing.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 29, 2012 14:06:57 GMT -8
The source reported new numbers today. Since my last post back on 11-21, the Yes has added 132,639 and the No has added 46,962. So the votes recently counted have been 73.85% in favor. Still not going to make it, but the overall vote now stands at: Yes: 1,841,208 65.88% No: 953,507 34.12%
I projected that there might have been about 186,616 votes left, and 179,601 were added since then. I believe they are pretty close to done counting. Still, it could be the case that we get 66.00% when we needed 66.67%. Bodes well for the next vote...
RT
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 29, 2012 14:28:32 GMT -8
The source reported new numbers today. Since my last post back on 11-21, the Yes has added 132,639 and the No has added 46,962. So the votes recently counted have been 73.85% in favor. Still not going to make it, but the overall vote now stands at: Yes: 1,841,208 65.88% No: 953,507 34.12% I projected that there might have been about 186,616 votes left, and 179,601 were added since then. I believe they are pretty close to done counting. Still, it could be the case that we get 66.00% when we needed 66.67%. Bodes well for the next vote... RT I think they estimate about 75k votes left. 96% of them would have to be yes for it to pass. Looks like it will be within 1%.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 29, 2012 15:57:08 GMT -8
The source reported new numbers today. Since my last post back on 11-21, the Yes has added 132,639 and the No has added 46,962. So the votes recently counted have been 73.85% in favor. Still not going to make it, but the overall vote now stands at: Yes: 1,841,208 65.88% No: 953,507 34.12% I projected that there might have been about 186,616 votes left, and 179,601 were added since then. I believe they are pretty close to done counting. Still, it could be the case that we get 66.00% when we needed 66.67%. Bodes well for the next vote... RT Just imagine what a little bit of promotion by Antonio or Metro would have done to get this passed. This happened with little to no advertising. During the Measure R campaign, nearly all the politicians for it were speaking to media and campaigning for this increase. Antonio was everywhere talking about the benefits. Nothing like that happened for J. Anyways, the next time a vote is scheduled, I hope it's what Antonio truly wanted, which is making Measure R a permanent tax. Maybe 2016 when people see the Expo Line and Foothill open? Or 2020 when the Crenshaw Line is open? Personally, I think 2024 would be best, because by then, people would see a subway to West LA (La Cienega, at least), Expo Line with full utilization, a Crenshaw Line that is just missing the northern sput to the westside and increased ridership on Metrolink due to rail extensions. When people see and experience those and start debating the expiration of Measure R in 2039, they'll think "maybe this is a good tax and we should 1) either extend another 30 years today with new projects or 2) make Measure R permanent". I hope for the latter. Imagine LA before Measure R.
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 29, 2012 19:21:18 GMT -8
I wonder how the Measure J vote would have turned out if it had included funding for the Gold Line Foothill Extension between Glendora and Claremont. San Gabriel Valley residents might have given enough support to overcome the 66.66666667% requirement.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Wentzel on Nov 30, 2012 10:50:15 GMT -8
I wonder how the Measure J vote would have turned out if it had included funding for the Gold Line Foothill Extension between Glendora and Claremont. San Gabriel Valley residents might have given enough support to overcome the 66.66666667% requirement. I'd go farther than that. Commit to the Leimert Park station too. There is a chance the new Democratic supermajority in the state legislature will pass a State Constitutional Amendment lowering the voting threshhold to 55% for school and/or transportation tax measures. If I have any critique of Measure J, it is that it didn't promise anything in addition to what Measure R is already paying for, only that Measure R designated projects would be built sooner. In hindsight, if promising to extend the Gold Line to Claremont and building the Leimert Park station on the Crenshaw line would have put Measure J over the 2/3 mark, which it almost was, it now seems a missed opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Dec 1, 2012 7:28:07 GMT -8
How can you promise something when the funds would not be available for it, at least as planned. I guess a plan that included the Gold Line would need to also raise more funds somehow, without raising taxes. I would like to see that from Metro.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Dec 2, 2012 0:37:36 GMT -8
Just curious, if Measure R is a temporary tax, are we still paying the original Prop A (1980) tax that funded the Blue/Red/Green lines? If not, when did it expire?
|
|
|
Post by macross287 on Dec 2, 2012 9:09:03 GMT -8
Yes LA County residents are still paying Prop A (1980) and Prop C (1990) taxes. I believe they are permanent and have no set expiration date.
But most of the funds from those tax measures are already commited to system upgrades (Red line new ventilation system, blue line fleet rehabilitation, blue line station refurbishments, etc) and metro bus and rail operation subsidies.
|
|