Ubinger for Durham City Council
Ray Ubinger
http://heraldsun.com/votebook/candpage.cfm?NameID=287&RaceID=95&County=Durham
The hard copy is to run this Sunday (in the Herald-Sun). There's
also supposed to be an N&O article on my race, and the N&O
questionnaire responses (hard copy), but I don't know exactly when. There
was a Herald-Sun article on my race on Sun 23 Sep.
One volunteer has asked privately if she can help. Please distribute as
many copies of my Votebook page as you can afford, to whoever's around
ya. The Herald-Sun permits this (I asked), as long as you leave their name
on it.
A sample primary ballot is viewable at:
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/elec/2001-smpl-ballot.cfm
Primary -- Tue 9 Oct, 6:30 a.m. - 7:30 p.m.
General -- Tue 6 Nov, 6:30 a.m. - 7:30 p.m.
(You'll be able to vote for me in both.)
End the random roadblocks,
Ray Ubinger
Libertarian for Durham City Council Ward 1 in November 2001
Susan Hogarth
> For y'all's infotainment:
>
> http://heraldsun.com/votebook/candpage.cfm?NameID=287&RaceID=95&County=Durham
Ray,
(1) Does the Durham City Council have multiple-member districts? Is that why
you refer to the incumbent(s) as 'they' over and over in the question about
incumbent(s)?
(2) Do you expect to be taken as anything other than a perennial kook when
you use terms such as "Mayor Thought-Control" to refer to the current
administration?
(3) What does this text: "None that are municipal or nonpartisan. All other
tallies get falsified, so with them we can't be sure. Four Durham
officials--like D.A. Jim Hardin--were even declared winners before a single
vote was cast in their races. The tally actually claims that they won
unanimously. This fraudulent situation comes from an unconstitutional ban on
write-in voting, passed by the G.A. in 1987." have to do with the subject
header it is found under - "Offices Held"?
--
Susan Hogarth
WEEKLY AUCTION to benefit beagle rescue!
http://www.tribeagles.org/cgi-bin/Auction.pl
Ray Ubinger
> Does the Durham City Council have multiple-member districts?
It has one. It *is* one seven-member district.
> Is that why you refer to the incumbent(s) as 'they' over and over in
> the question about incumbent(s)?
Yes. Jackie Wagstaff is not the only one of them who could win this
seat (Ward 1).
> Do you expect to be taken as anything other than a perennial kook when
> you use terms such as "Mayor Thought-Control" to refer to the
> current administration?
Hey he called me a criminal first. And at least my name-calling purports
a reason.
Sometimes my big mouth is funny, sometimes it's embarrassing. I feel
fine about shooting it off this way this time. Mayors who try to
forcibly dictate what peaceful honest people can and can't say in
public deserve nothing but rebuke for it.
> What does this text: "None that are municipal or nonpartisan. All
> other tallies get falsified, so with them we can't be sure. [etc.]" have
> to do with the subject header it is found under - "Offices Held"?
It's an explanation of why I think an enlightened answer depends on what
kind of office is being asked about. For instance if I was the
people's favorite citizen eligible for the office of County Commission
'98 (they were never asked), I think that's tantamount to having earned
it enough to say I held it.
Your opinion may vary. If so, you can even make it count in this
race. Presuming you become a registered Durham voter in time.
Ray U.
Ray Ubinger
>
>The hard copy is to run this Sunday (in the Herald-Sun). There's
>also supposed to be an N&O article on my race, and the N&O
>questionnaire responses (hard copy), but I don't know exactly when.
Speak of the devil. The N&O coverage is in today's hard copy. I can't find
a URL for it. I'm guessing it's only in the Durham edition and that
they don't post such articles to their website.
Susan Hogarth
> Susan Hogarth asks:
>
>> Does the Durham City Council have multiple-member districts?
>
> It has one. It *is* one seven-member district.
I thought it was a six-member council, with three at-large positions and
three Wards, and this race was for Ward 1....
>> Is that why you refer to the incumbent(s) as 'they' over and over in
>> the question about incumbent(s)?
>
> Yes. Jackie Wagstaff is not the only one of them who could win this
> seat (Ward 1).
She's the only *incumbent* in this race; isn't she? The question was about
the *incumbent* in the race you were running.
>> Do you expect to be taken as anything other than a perennial kook when
>> you use terms such as "Mayor Thought-Control" to refer to the
>> current administration?
>
> Hey he called me a criminal first. And at least my name-calling purports
> a reason.
>
> Sometimes my big mouth is funny, sometimes it's embarrassing. I feel
> fine about shooting it off this way this time. Mayors who try to
> forcibly dictate what peaceful honest people can and can't say in
> public deserve nothing but rebuke for it.
And the answer to my question...? ;-)
>> What does this text: "None that are municipal or nonpartisan. All
>> other tallies get falsified, so with them we can't be sure. [etc.]" have
>> to do with the subject header it is found under - "Offices Held"?
>
> It's an explanation of why I think an enlightened answer depends on what
> kind of office is being asked about.
Eh? Jeezus; it's a simple question, Ray. Can't you give a simple answer?
Have you held any offices?
> For instance if I was the
> people's favorite citizen eligible for the office of County Commission
> '98 (they were never asked), I think that's tantamount to having earned
> it enough to say I held it.
???? Really? Doesn't reality have some bearing here?
> Your opinion may vary. If so, you can even make it count in this
> race. Presuming you become a registered Durham voter in time.
Not bloody likely. Too settled in Wake, sorry. The _Independent_ gave you a
nice clause in their writeup, I thought (right after they dismissed you as a
reasonable candidate).
Ray Ubinger
>>> Does the Durham City Council have multiple-member districts?
>>
>> It has one. It *is* one seven-member district.
>
> I thought it was a six-member council, with three at-large positions
> and three Wards, and this race was for Ward 1.
Also true. That's even the usual wording (plus the at-large mayoral
slot). But it acts like one big 7-member district. EVERY registered
city voter gets one vote for EVERY seat. The only thing the Ward
boundaries do is limit where (within the city) three of the MEMBERS have
to reside.
Again: ALL seven members answer to ALL city voters at the polls. ALL
city voters get to vote in ALL seven races. ALL seven members
therefore represent ALL city voters.
ps
Actually it's still 13 right now, not 7 yet, but this is the year it's
getting halved.
>> Jackie Wagstaff is not the only one of [the incumbents] who could win
>> this seat (Ward 1).
>
> She's the only *incumbent* in this race; isn't she? The question was
> about the *incumbent* in the race you were running.
In a sense which may not be common usage, yet which is completely
valid constitutionally, anyone the voters can elect is in the race.
Incumbent Brenda Burnette (for one) lives in Ward 1, therefore the voters
will be just as able to elect her to the Ward 1 slot as they will be able
to elect Jackie or me. Brenda herself might even start pointing this out
if she "loses" the "primary" in "her" race (Mayor).
Likewise "my" race could validly be thought of as being "for the Ward 1
seat or an At-Large seat or the Mayor seat." I'm electable to any of the
7 seats except the Ward 2 seat and the Ward 3 seat. I'm electable to any
of five different seats.
If I picked a "wrong" one of those five seats in which to buy the
govt-run advertising (the $122 filing fee) -- i.e., if the people
really think I should become mayor or an at-large seat holder and not the
Ward 1 seat holder -- they can actually say so in November. And
hey, believe it or not, I would take it. :) Nothing can stop Y'All the
Bosses from making such a decision.
The fact that I purchased govt-run advertising for the Ward 1 seat has
no control over it. Some influence, probably, but zero control. Every
>21 voter in the race, in good (non-felony) standing, is a full-
fledged candidate--for being chosen to office by the people--as far as our
Law is concerned. We won't KNOW, until Nov. 6, whether or not the people
want EVEN ONE of the people who makes it onto the Nov. ballot to proceed
to become (or stay) a Councilman.
Give me all the raspberries you want for talking like this. This is
my campaign and I think it's interesting to focus on. I think it could
have important implications in certain situations. And it keeps attention
on my main issue of the write-in ban, even in this "off season" of an
odd-#'d year, when the ban goes dormant.
I'm also proud of coming up with a money-saving spin on it -- do away with
the nonpartisan primaries entirely! They really do decide nothing and
really do cost money. If that idea succeeded, I think it could
possibly become a wedge in people's minds that would one day split the log
of govt-subsidized PARTISAN primaries.
IIRC, as recently as '95, a guy in Greensboro, the _Rhino Times_
editor, actually pulled down something like a third of the vote for
Mayor, after waiting 'til THREE WEEKS before the general election (one
week AFTER the "primary") to START talking himself up as a (write-
in) candidate. It ain't over 'til it's over.
> Doesn't reality have some bearing here?
Yes, and my attempted point (re: Votebook's office-holding question) was
to bring people's attention to the aspect of reality which reveals that
the whole list of partisan nonmunicipal office-holders since 1987 is, at
root, a lie.
I have _constitutionally_ held _elective_ office with the people's
_consent_, if and only if the people wanted me to.
Did the people want me to or not? Beats me. And I figure if the
Herald-Sun really wants to report only who has held non-constitutional,
pseudo-elective office, fraudulently, without the people's consent, then
they can look it up themselves at the Board of Rigged Elections, and fill
in that blank themselves on the questionnaires.
Now that I mention it, that reminds me. As a "perennial candidate" I am in
a position to let you in on the little secret: the N&O this year has in
fact changed their questionnaire wordings, due (I'm confident) to my
answers in past years. For them, it's now "political experience" instead
of "offices held." And "political hero" instead of "most admired
political figure" (to which I used to have fun saying the Statue of Liberty).
And "last book read" instead of "favorite book" (to which I tried to have
fun last year (they refused to print it) saying "How the Grinch Stole
the Election").
But I happen to know that the Herald-Sun is in fact rather sympathetic to
my de-rigging propaganda. And boy are they generous with their Votebook
space (online and printed).
>> Your opinion may vary. If so, you can even make it count in this
>> race. Presuming you become a registered Durham voter in time.
>
> Not bloody likely. Too settled in Wake, sorry.
Oh, that's fine, but then you should stop beating me up <*sniff*> for
spending my $122 advertising as my oddball strategizing sees fit, and
instead figure out whom you're gonna vote for at your own polls. :-)
You've been reading my incessant focus on the fraudulent elections so
much that it really is tiring to you. Realize that the people I was
AIMING for, with my admittedly unconventional response to that
Votebook question, are the many folks who have never heard of the
issue before.
> The _Independent_ gave you a
>nice clause in their writeup, I thought (right after they dismissed you as a
>reasonable candidate).
Hey now, they didn't insinuate I was non-reasonable. They dismissed me
(and Jeffrey White) as being not -knowledeable- enough. That clarified,
I definitely agree they were kind to close with, ..."though Ubinger
has successfully brought attention to civil liberties issues."
All in all I think my campaigns are doing all right at keeping people aware
of my and my party's names and positions.
Barbara Howe got a similar "honorable mention" from the Independent last
year (in the Goob race). They endorsed Easley, but remarked that for
single-issue anti-death-penalty voters Barbara was definitely the name
to pick.
Ray U.