Recall Petitioners Came Up Short With Cheating??

I was surprised to see how close the Recall petitioners came in their attempts to force a half-million dollar election on a city strapped for cash. While I had accurately predicted that the effort would fail, I had expected them to come up with fewer than they turned in. It turns out that they inflated their totals with bogus signatures.

How sad is that? What’s the point of cheating if you’re not even going to do enough of it to win? That’s kind of like hiding a deuce up your sleeve in a poker game, instead of an ace.

It’s also kind of disappointing that the recall organizers are changing their story now that violations of the law are coming to light. A few short weeks ago, they were crowing about how their percentage of valid signatures would be much higher in the second batch of signatures they turned in, because they had screened and checked them. Now that the excrement is headed toward the cooling unit, they are claiming they didn’t provide their volunteers any formal training on how not to cheat (why not?), and that they did not review all the petitions.

To be crystal clear, there’s no way, in my opinion, that any of the organizers of the recall movement actually condoned any cheating. Some of their followers drank too deeply of the anti-Funk kool-aid and went too far. Given their failure to train their volunteers and the fact that they turned in bogus petitions, I think it’s time, however, that they stop wasting everyone’s time and money.

If they file a lawsuit to force a recount of their bogus petitions, I hope that the judge is wise enough to insist that they, not the Kansas City taxpayers, be forced to pay the costs.

19 Responses to “Recall Petitioners Came Up Short With Cheating??”

  1. Nick says:

    The recall people have this somewhat wrong. They don't neet a recount (which will just show more of their collected signatures to be false/non-existent), what they need to do is slip quietly off-stage and bide their time until next year, when they can come back and try again.

    Kansas Citian's adore lovable and nonsensical losers ( see Clay Chastain ): the Funk Recall could become an annual Spring tradition, much like a Tibetan sky burial, the buzzards returning to Hinckley, Ohio, or fans throwing an octopus onto the ice after the Red Wings score a goal during a home game.

    Make about as much sense, too…

  2. Sophia says:

    Dan,

    If you don't think the organizers encouraged cheating, then the comment about "not cheating enough to win" is pretty unfair. Isolated incidences of faked signatures (outside the disturbingly common "I'll sign for my spouse") are a better indication that signature gatherers were motivated by money, than that they cared about ballot access.

    Personally, I think it's irresponsible to pay signature gatherers by the signature. Precisely because we know it creates an incentive to cheat. And it's just kind of messed up. You don't trust your worker enough to pay him hourly, but you trust him enough to not commit fraud? In the case of a citizen's initiative, you should be able to find enough circulators who care enough about the issue to be trusted to do the job at an hourly rate.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Meanwhile did you see TKC today?

  4. inafunkaboutthefunk says:

    …the comment about "not cheating enough to win" is pretty unfair.
    ———-

    Remember Sophie that Dan is being his normal totally biased, at times delusional and sometimes JUST PLAIN WRONG self :)

  5. Anonymous says:

    Which TKC article are you talking about?

  6. Anonymous says:

    The one about Beth.

  7. Anonymous says:

    What does Beth have to do with the recall petition?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Dan,
    What were your comments on the ACORN voter-registration process? I seem to recall that you were in their corner on that one. I really don't think we need to waste time and money trying to recall Funk. I am not a supporter of his, but I am not his enemy either. Regardless, let's not allow our political viewpoint blur our ability to look at these things objectively.
    wkb

  9. Anonymous says:

    Dan — what is with the comments about Beth? Did you read Tony's post?

  10. Dan says:

    Sophia – You're probably right. As usual.

    Ina – What did that add to the conversation, other than hate?

    Anonymice – This thread isn't about Beth, or about the local joke blog. Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

    WKB – As far as I know, I didn't write anything about ACORN. If I did write anything on the topic, I'm certain I would have expressed dismay at cheating, but I would have suggested that an organization cannot necessarily be blamed for the behavior of a few rogues. The good thing about always telling the truth is that I don't have to worry about being caught up in hypocrisy or lies.

  11. Anonymous says:

    But if the recall succeeds, could Beth be one of the candidates in a future election?

  12. Phil Cardarella says:

    Recall — especially recall on such slender grounds and by what would be so slender a margin of petitioners — is a bad idea.

    Those who are unhappy with the Mayor — especially his erstwhile supporters — should have to endure a full four years, so that no one will ever tout the virtues of the "Non-Politician Everyman" ever again. Voting for even the brightest non-politician brings the bad with the good. Sometimes the gifted amateur does well, more often badly.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Phil — who do you support in 2011?

  14. Anonymous says:

    "slender margin of petitioners"
    are you effing kidding me? When more than 10 thousand people sign to recall somebody, that is not insignificant and certainly not slender.
    I will not forget that all of the so called "professionals" and the elite watched this thing from the sidelines.
    I wish there was a way for all of those who signed the petition to remain banded together and become a true grass roots force in the city. Ten thousand votes swings an election. Easy.

  15. Has a backbone says:

    It is pretty clear that Jeff Roe hired people to submit bad recall forms the same way he did to try to undermine ACORN. How does it feel to work on the same side as Jeff Roe Dan?

    I know I will never have that feeling.

  16. Dan says:

    That is truly funny. So, in your tinfoil hat world of conspiracy, Jeff Roe actually had spies working on the campaign, submitting bogus signatures, on the off chance that AFTER the original total came up short, even more of the signatures would later be found to be bogus, even though it would all be irrelevant if the recall people had done an adequate job of collecting valid signatures??

    I trust that, as you claim, you have a backbone. I do, too. I also have an organ that I use to apply logic before I write. You might want to look into that . . .

  17. inafunkaboutthefunk says:

    Ina – What did that add to the conversation, other than hate?
    =======

    Danny Danny Danny… you accused the Recall Group of fraud and you then suggest that all I brought out in my comment was hate? What is wrong with you? Open your eyes pal and see what YOU bring to your own Blog!

    Tony, what are the odds of this comment being deleted by the thin skinned one?

  18. Dan says:

    Ina, you're being silly. First off, when I wrote about the fraud of the petitioners, it was based on reports of fraud of the petitioners. Your claim that I am delusional and just plain wrong was not similarly documented by the professional media.

    Second, I never delete your comments simply for poor judgment or questionable taste. I only delete them when they are offensive or completely off-topic. If you want the freedom to post such material, call me up and I'll happily walk you through the process of setting up your own blog.

  19. inafunkaboutthefunk says:

    Untrue and delusion again Dan… you have deleted a bunch of comments because you just plain didn't like what I wrote and/or they offended your thin skinned sensibilities.

    That being said… it's your show. Do as you wish :) Try not to pretend most of us don't know what you are doing or who you are! That makes you even more Funk A Dunk like that you most probably really are.*

    * maybe Tony knows you better, I will ask him.

Leave a Reply