The latest Madville Times poll took an early snapshot of online support for the five candidates for Madison City Commission. The 191 votes cast (thank you, eager readers!) over the last couple days show a tight race for the two open seats:
| candidate | votes | % |
|---|---|---|
| Ashley Allen | 40 | 13% |
| Jeremiah Corbin | 63 | 21% |
| Gene Hexom | 64 | 22% |
| Kelly Johnson | 63 | 21% |
| Jennifer Wolff | 67 | 23% |
With the standard online margin of error just slightly larger than the city's debt load, we see four of the five candidates in an early tie. Former mayor Gene Hexom and former school board member Kelly Johnson appear evenly matched with political newcomers Jennifer Wolff and Jeremiah Corbin.
All five candidates were tied during the first 24 hours of voting. Yesterday, Ashley Allen's support hit a strange plateau. Allen's fifth-place finish seems anomalous given that of the five candidates, he has commented most frequently on this blog. Has blog familiarity bred contempt among Madville Times readers?
Compare that to Hexom's strong showing among blog readers who have heard me regularly denigrate Hexom's blindered and brittle rein over Madison. That Hexom could come out ahead of Allen in a poll on this blog suggests that Madville Times readers are far from a mere reflection of the author's views.
For some real fun, let's look at how voters' first and second picks align:
| Second Vote | |||||||
| First Vote | Ashley Allen | Gene Hexom | Jennifer Wolff | Jeremiah Corbin | Kelly Johnson | (blank) | First vote total |
| Ashley Allen | 4 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 32 | |
| Gene Hexom | 2 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 6 | 30 | |
| Jennifer Wolff | 3 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 37 | 51 | |
| Jeremiah Corbin | 2 | 13 | 5 | 5 | 15 | 40 | |
| Kelly Johnson | 1 | 14 | 2 | 9 | 12 | 38 | |
| Second vote total | 8 | 34 | 16 | 23 | 25 | 85 | |
The strongest synergy between candidates is between the former officeholders, Hexom and Johnson. 15 of the folks who picked Hexom first picked Johnson second; 14 of the folks who picked Johnson first picked Hexom second.
Jennifer Wolff appears to have the strongest contingent of single-candidate voters. 55% of the folks who voted for Wolff did not pick a second candidate. Only 9% of Hexom's voters declined to check a second candidate. Let's step on some really thin speculative ice: does this suggest Wolff has some unique appeal? Is there a contingent of voters determined to return a female voice to the city commission?
We could flip that number on its head and suggest a challenge for Wolff and Allen: they have the lowest crossover appeal (45% and 63%, respectively), the ability to draw voters who mark a second box. Hexom and Johnson have the most crossover appeal (91% and 81%).
One more note: when we talk about state House races, we often hear that the goal in those two-slot races is to be everyone's second choice. This city commission poll may support that adage. Hexom is the only candidate who got more than half of his votes from people who clicked his name second. And sure enough, he came in second overall, by one vote.
The Madison city election is April 8: stay tuned for more exciting local politics!
I think this poll would have been interesting if we could guarantee that these were Madison residents casting votes in the poll. I’ll take my chances on the unscientific poll and say that I am still running a good campaign.
At any rate, I love being the underdog. They never see us coming. Madison is ready for a new voice for the future. We do not want another Hexom administration that promotes crony capitalism, secret meetings, and back room deals. Madison wants a fiscal conservative that will prioritize infrastructure projects, streamline economic development, says NO to new taxes, works to retire city debt, and fosters a culture of open dialogue, transparency, and accountability at City Hall. I will be that person for Madison. Help support the campaign at http://www.AllenForMadison.com or join our discussion at Facebook.com/AllenForMadison today!
-Ashley Kenneth Allen
Wow! Not sure I've seen such a tight (albeit unscientific) race before. The good news here? It tells me that there are five outstanding candidates who would like to help Madison thrive and while there is only room for two in this particular race, I hope the other three don't give up and maybe it will open other doors where they can still help Madison in maybe a way they hadn't thought of yet.
Mr. H, somebody must be messing with your voting polls. I could not vote because I don't live in Madison but everybody here knows that Mr. Ashley Kenneth Allen should have mopped the floor with these other fine fellows and gals. You don't have to be a Sibbyesque math whiz to figure out that 5 of them tied through a couple of days and then 4 of them tied and pulling away from Mr. Ashley Kenneth Allen and ending in a virtual tie shows that there was a conspiracy against AKA.
grudznick says "vote AKA" in the real voting.
TG, I hope all five keep plugging away, too... because they are all Democrats. :-D
Well, then, I might need to change my opinion!!! JK. Honestly, I am firmly more R than D especially fiscally. However, I want the best for Madison as I have a vested interest there as well and I think it's a great town. I don't want to see it overpowered by too much (outside) corporate types. I may play partial blame in that but there's alot of risk in that and so I guess if it's going to flourish that way, so be it. I like it the way it was but I'm too distant from it now to really know. Whether R or D, if a candidate is TRULY for bettering Madison, I'm all for it. Maybe Madison can be a great example with these 'new' (to me) young folks that might be able to represent both sides of the aisle. Do you think that? Or are you strictly for them b/c they're D?
TG, Madison is an excellent example of South Dakota schizophrenia. We act like we're all about conservatism, but when it comes to things like economic development and the Lewis and Clark water project, we're all about big government and bringing home the bacon from Washington.
But I like local elections specifically because they aren't about partisan politics. I have some of my best, common-ground conversations with Tea Partiers when we talk about local (and even state) politics. We get to talk about real local issues that don't fit into the prefab partisan templates of talk radio. We can't appeal to the soundbites peddled by national pols; we have to think through what we really believe and want to do in our communities.
I note these five local candidates' party affiliation mostly with amusement. Gene Hexom's a Democrat, but his policies and attitude have mostly torqued me off. I'd say party affiliation is mostly irrelevant to practical municipal governance in South Dakota. It is relevant mostly for the inside baseball of figuring out who might be in training to run for higher office.
Agreed!
We all seriously know Ashley will run this community right into the ground. I don't want someone representing this community that stabs people in the back, is a community trash talker and spreader. I also do not want someone representing madison that chases his words around and clearly can't answer any questions if it's not blaming someone for something. Finger pointing and name calling and isn't going to get us anywhere. I've been thinking about moving and of someone like that gets elected it's a for sure thing then. I know I'm not the only one thinking this. Do the right thing people, it's uneducated voters that will ruin this town.
"We all seriously know"... who is "we all"? This appeal to imaginary consensus is a logical fallacy, signalling you really don't have a good argument against the positions Allen has stated. And who are you? Put your name to this comment, please, and tell me why we should dismiss a serious critique of community problems and proposals for rectifying those problems as "trash talk."
(But I suppose my pointing out a logical fallacy is also "trash talk.")
My bet is Wolff and Corbin come out on top today. IMO, Allen's criticism was too much. He railed on the LAIC and Chamber for what they failed at, but never talked about their successes nor how they could be essential to the future growth of this town. Global Polymer, U.S. Salt, the new hospital, and the Integra expansion are just a few recent projects that they have been working on in the past 12 months. Community input is important, but we also should rely on these entities to work on their own to grow the community. It only seems that certain people want community involvement if it doesn't go their way on certain projects or if they don't like the project at all. As a citizen, I don't feel my input is needed on every business or person looking to expand or spend money in Madison. If the amount of public financial support exceeds that of normal projects, then i think a community poll or survey could be a useful guide for the projects direction. Frankly, having citizens involved in every step of economic dev is going to hamper the growth process. We need to rely on those we elect to do the right thing and make sure they are working in our favor as citizens. IMO, Allen's criticisms are much smaller than what those entities have accomplished and he fails to acknowledge that. From the voters I have talked to, many feel the same as I do. There is a time for public input, and there is a time we let our officials make the choices for us. If you don't like that, vote for someone you think will make the decisions like you would because that is the entire point of our democratic voting system.
Dumper gave a fake e-mail address. I now ignore him.
Daniel, I'm curious: you have been awfully critical of Allen and of me. Can I simply brand that criticism "trash talk" and dismiss you completely, or is your identification of serious problems and errors in our statements a worthwhile contribution to public discourse? If the latter, then why can Allen and I not have equal leeway to criticize the problems the city has? Must every critique of Allen, me, or Madison be prefaced with a lengthy song of praise to all that is good and holy about Madison at its estimable city fathers, hallowed by their names... or can we just cut to the chase and talk about the things that need to be fixed?
When it comes to campaign direction, too much negative can never be good. I think that is what left a bad taste in my mouth. I have my concerns for the other candidates which i did not address, and I am in agreement with other things that Allen proposed, specifically, a year round place for a farmer's market and a program paired with local mentors to help small businesses get jump started. Maybe my original post was a good example of why communicating only what a person critiques could end up portraying a negative attitude when that may not be their entire position?
When it comes to Chamber and LAIC support, to say we could just pull their funding and start building what we want(a movie theatre), and not consider what we lose is a huge issue in my book. That is one of the originating factors of my comment. Let me paraphrase Hexon, if we don't promote Madison with these organizations, who will? There is some truth to that statement.