A couple of editorials on the stupidity of the council election threshold amendment

I am still baffled how even one councilor could support this, but if this gets a passing vote I will begin to wonder how much confidence I can have in them make knowledgable decisions about other ordinances?

Of course the Argus Leader put both of these editorials online yesterday, then didn’t print them in Sunday’s paper. In fact the entire opinion page was missing with a full page ad of the Arc of Dreams. A project that still hasn’t gotten proper permitting. Some times I wonder if there is anybody home over at 10th and Minnesota. At least we can still read the editorials online;

At the risk of softening all this self-importance over how to seat a city council, there are good reasons to vote down this amendment:

â–º Council positions don’t carry nearly the same weight as the top executive office in Sioux Falls’ strong-mayor form of city government. That is a legitimate reason not to make attaining the position as demanding or expensive.

â–º Spending a potential $80,000 for runoff elections to determine office-holders who represent only a portion of the city’s electorate might not be a proportional “cost to democracy.”

â–º The likelier prospect of facing a runoff, along with the additional time and money required for longer campaigns, puts grassroots candidates at a disadvantage to deeper-pocketed establishment candidates, a potentially greater cost to democracy.

Change for the sake of change isn’t necessarily a virtue. If our city council feels a better system is needed to produce democratic outcomes, let them be equally democratic in finding a method that won’t leave the general citizenry shaking its collective head.

There was also an individual who expressed concern;

I wish to thank Rolfing and Erpenbach for their service. However, Rolfing’s burning bridges proposal before he leaves office to changing the vote for elected city officials to 51 percent, with Michelle Erpenbach’s support, is ridiculous at best. I would suggest to Rolfing and Erpenbach to reconsider their proposal and think about the cost to taxpayers.

Ridiculous is right, and any councilor that supports it is ridiculous to. How can you even be taken seriously after voting for this? Really?