Which Greensboro council candidates voted in 2011?

There are a handful of new Greensboro City Council candidates who didn't vote in the council primary two years ago, but only one newcomer didn't vote in the last council election at all.

John Alexander Underwood, who is running against incumbent Nancy Hoffmann and former mayor Bill Knight for the District 4 seat, votes regularly but completely missed the 2011 city council election (He did vote in the primary and general elections for the 2009 council races).

Tigress McDaniel in District 1, Corey Pysher in District 3 and Alex Seymour in District 5 didn't vote in the 2011 council primary (but showed up for the general election). To be fair, there was no primary in these three districts, but the candidates could have voted in the mayoral and at-large primaries. Speaking of at large, candidates Joseph Landis and Katei Cranford, two of the nine at-large candidates, didn't vote in the 2011 primary either.

Wanna know more? You can look up the full voting history of the candidates, yourself or anyone else on the state board of elections' website (when they voted but not who they voted for, obviously). Here's the link. Some aren't registered under the same name that will appear on the ballot, like Kathryn Cranford and Scott Seymour.

We'll be uploading basic candidate profiles for all of the Greensboro City Council candidates soon at www.triadpolitics.info. Some of the Winston-Salem council candidates are already up, but we're still waiting to hear back from most of the candidates in Greensboro. Stay posted!

18 comments:

John Underwood said...

I did not vote because I did not like the choices =P

Billy Jones said...

Maybe it's time we rethought this thing.

Is a previous voting record as a citizen really pertinent? As John Underwood indicated above, he didn't like the choices.

Others may not get politically involved until politics slap them in their faces, perhaps making political victims out of them.

Believe it or not some employers still do not let workers leave to go vote. And to attempt to push the issue means sure fire unemployment for many workers.

And being that ballots are secret is voting any measure of how a candidate might enact legislation once elected to office? Somehow I doubt it.

Fact is: the candidate who has never voted seems somehow less indoctrinated and indebted to the system than those shining examples we hold up every day.

Brian Clarey said...

Voting is a big part of the job for an elected official.

Billy Jones said...

Seriously Brian, that's the best you can come up with? It appears the years have indoctrinated you. Too bad...

Jordan Green said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jordan Green said...

"It appears the years have indoctrinated you"? Is that a euphemism for maturity?

Billy Jones said...

And the media articles at every election telling you of the challengers who failed to vote last time 'round? That's just another of the many ways our local media attempts to influence the outcome of our local elections making a fuss over a non issue while all the while ignoring the lies and corruption of the incumbent status quo.

Eric Ginsburg said...

You can make whatever you want to of the fact that someone who is running for city council hasn't voted in the most recent council primary. My concern isn't whether it's positive or negative — it's a relevant fact, people want to know and I'm making public information more readily available.

For someone who talks a lot about a perceived lack of transparency with the city, I'd think you would applaud having more information about candidates rather than less.

sal leone said...

I see both Eric and Billy's point but jabs seem to be given only to candidates, those in office need a few. If we are talking about voting then how about how council voted on the downtown noise issue, if I remember right Yes Weekly wrote a lot about the issue when it started and seemed to side with the clubs. The vote came in and no big story on why council voted the way they did, is it because they like some on council and don't want to put heat on them.

I have taken a few hits, my so called many races I ran, which is two and the term many was missed used, two is not many. I like Yes Weekly and it can be the best paper in town.

sal leone said...

I forgot to add, Eric and Jordan are very good reporters. I like to see more information on those in office, the deals they make, the money they take, the business deals they are involved in.
The Candidates are already being treated by the city with no respect, we have to post are PIRT, council does not. DO A STORY ON THAT. The question I like to know is why is it being done, answer: to give council a heads up, CIA stuff, this is an open way to violate are privacy and tip the election in favor of a sitting council member.

Eric Ginsburg said...

We've thoroughly covered the noise ordinance's return:
-http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-16322-greensboro-approves-noise-ordinance-changes.html
-http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-16117-noise-debate-altered-greene-street-closing-rooftop.html
-http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-15727-greensboro-council-resurrects-noise-ordinance.html

Speculating that we're motivated not to write about certain issues (whether it's noise or anything else) to protect incumbents is ridiculous. There are a million things to cover and we try to do the best we can with a small staff, and I'd argue we do a pretty excellent job. The noise coverage I linked to above is a good example.

I bet if you asked current council members if they feel like we go easy on them that none of them will say yes.

The PIRT issue does not violate your privacy — it's a matter of public record. At the same time, you do not have to provide your name when you request information or say why you want it, so it's not exactly difficult to get around. The issue of holding council members to a different standard may be an issue, but we just haven't had a chance to write about it yet and I'm not sure it merits a full news article. Thanks for your suggestions and compliments, though.

sal leone said...

Well I will hold back judgement and be fair and wait till the election is over to see how fair the media was. I actually like you and Jordan, I see lots of promise of good reporting. I will read the links above and see. In regards to the PIRT, they are public, yes that is true but no one would know I requested them. As per going around the system, yes it is easy but it would be lying and not a good way for a public official to begin his career, once it starts there is no limit to lying to the public. The way the city handled the PIRT request with candidates reminds me of the GPD spying episode, only now spying is approved by city staff. I think it is fair if I have access to want council has access to.

Give me a buzz sometime, love to chat.

Jordan Green said...

Is the city of Greensboro holding challengers to a different standard by publishing their public records requests while informally providing information to incumbents based on non-published verbal requests?

sal leone said...

Hi Jordan, hope you are well. The answer is that the city is holding challengers to a different level. We already have an uphill battle in the election and now they want to give our plans away for all to see. When we request a PIRT it contains what we are wanting and thinking, it gives secrets away or plans I should say. The current council member now knows what to review. I have no idea what the council member is doing, so if we are using math, a positive and negative, equal negative in my case. I want access to want council knows, whats coming to town, plans the city is working on, non public data that they have access to first. The city should post what council looks into on a website for me to read.
Fair is not allowing one side to tell all it wants to know while the other side keeps it secret.

Billy Jones said...

Eric wrote: "You can make whatever you want to of the fact that someone who is running for city council hasn't voted in the most recent council primary. My concern isn't whether it's positive or negative — it's a relevant fact, people want to know and I'm making public information more readily available.

For someone who talks a lot about a perceived lack of transparency with the city, I'd think you would applaud having more information about candidates rather than less"

But what you are sadly missing is the following: This sort of gotcha only happens to new candidates. The incumbent and/or experienced candidate is already past this mistake. Therefore, this is giving an advantage to the incumbent/experienced candidate and it is being done by the media. In this case, Eric Ginsburg.

Also, what about the others? Did you report them? Did you go so far as to report that Incumbent X failed to vote say the year before he or she first ran for office those many years ago?

No, you didn't do any of those things so therefore your reporting was biased, unfair and slanted in-favor of the incumbent.

It's a heavy burden being a journalist but you are the one who chose to carry it. Me, I'll simply keep piling the load back on when you drop it. Get used to it.

Eric Ginsburg said...

Billy — I'm more than used to you piling on.

I disagree with your point: Incumbents and challengers are judged on different things, and this is one of the factors that someone might consider. I'd be surprised if this was a central issue for any voter (which is one reason it's only on our blog and didn't appear in print) but it's still worth noting.

That's fine that we don't agree on this, but I'm having trouble remembering the last time (if ever) you agreed with or applauded my work. I can understand where you're coming from on this topic, but criticizing our recent posts about some of the things Corey Pysher has done/said — really?? How could that possibly not be important to report?

Not seeing eye-to-eye with you doesn't exactly keep me up at night. But reading your comments and your blog do make put you near the top of my list of people who like to manufacture controversy, which is kind of ironic because that seems like what you're accusing us of doing.

Our election coverage is, by necessity and practicality, coming out in pieces. It might be worth waiting to see more of our coverage this cycle before deciding that we're giving incumbents and unfair advantage, but I'm pretty confident that no matter what we do, you'll take issue with it.

Eric Ginsburg said...

incumbents an unfair**

Jordan Green said...

How about if everybody votes in this upcoming election on the off chance that they might want to run for office in the future and will possibly have their voting records examined. There are plenty of us who consistently vote that have never run for office; I don't think it's unreasonable to hold candidates to the same standard.