1) Huntley has said he won't propose a repeal of the ban without overwhelming support. One vote is not going to make a difference.

2) If our tax dollars are wasted recounting a non-binding vote regarding a law that's been on the books for over a century, I think a few Duluthians will be mighty angry. I understand you may have grown accustomed to people annoyed by your antics but such a recount would be a colossal waste of time and money and I think you are smart enough to know that.

When did Democracy come with a price tag? If Danny wants to get a petition out and apply for a recount, then it's Danny's right as an American.

If you are going to bitch about waste of tax money then go and bitch about the waste of money towards the countless amount of bullshit projects in Duluth and Superior.

I thought change was coming, but people are so eager to shoot down people who want to practice and use their rights as Americans.

I agree with Craig. You're starting to sound like Norm Coleman arguing against Franken's waste of taxpayer money with that recount. OK, so it's not exactly analogous - but how much time and money could it possible take to recount 6000 ballets? I'll do it one evening while watching a show, if it will save the city money.

Oh, fine - I'll just let it go. I mustn't let Danny be my political ally! (no offense Danny - just messing around)

I mean "possibly" not "possible." I hate it when I make public mistakes :( I'm probably better off with no alcohol.

i'm actually reconsidering my vote for the measure in the first place.

my original intent was to allow established places such as the New London to be able to sell wine to their customers.

In discussing the matter with a couple of people who're close to me about the vote, I've come to the conclusion that the decision to repeal the dry status of Lakeside should be left up to the residents of Lakeside, and no one else.

Of course this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it...but the issue should never have been put on the city ballot.

Look folks... It's a NON BINDING VOTE. That means that even if one side edges out the other... nothing happens!!! It would need to be...as has been stated... an overwhelming majority to spur any action on this. A recount resulting in a win for the pro-repeal side by a few votes will not create that overwhelming majority. You are of course welcome to pursue it, but my opinion is that it will not produce your desired effect. It seems better to focus your energy in a more constructive direction.

I grew up in Omaha, and they got around a No Casino rule by putting one on a stationary riverboat in the Missouri River, between Nebraska and Iowa.

Maybe there could be a bar/offsale store aboard a houseboat floating just off Brighton Beach.

I suppose it would have seasonal hours of operation though, and wouldn't provide services in the dead of winter - when it may be needed most. Or it could be converted an ice fishing shack.

The issue was not on the city ballot. Only the ballots in the Lakeside precints.

I agree with @ndy: the point of the vote was to see if there was overwhelming support, and the vote already showed there wasn't. There is no point in recounting unless you think the ballots where inherently flawed and need to be checked manually. Time to move on.

Wait a second here. Are you guys basing this "overwhelming support" thing based only on Huntly's comments? Was there something in the wording of the actual question on the ballot that said "overwhelming support" would be needed for it to move forward?

I find these comments against Danny's recall efforts anti-perfect duluth day. I thought the people who support rhis "blog" also support the idea of a Democracy. Non binding or not.

Lord. Ness and the Council stated they would need evidence of "overwhelming support" to bring the issue to the council for an actual vote. Non-binding means non-binding. A recount would be pointless. Obviously.

nonbinding democracy?

There was not overwhelming opposition to the sale of alcohol in Lakeside either. In theory Danny could take his petition to 51 houses and have the 25 signatures needed.

Regardless of Rep. Huntley's statement, this is still a referendum, and identifying majority opinion is germane to shaping policy. In this case, we can't identify majority opinion without a recount. What if we have a new representative in two years whose philosophy is to represent majority opinion?

There's a lot of talk of expense here, to which I have two arguments. First, elections of all kind bring expense. Where do we draw the line as to when they've become too expensive? Are we willing to accept innacurate results in the name of frugality? Second, a hand recount of Lakeside ballots will already be taking place due to the Senate race. Additional expense would be negligible.

Many people keep majority rule in high regard, and it could very likely influence this issue in the future. Let's get it right.

Weird. I could of sworn that this post was missing for a while.

Regardless, I've come to a decision on whether or not to persue my recount petition. CHEAP TROLL-LIKE PLUG ALERT! You can hear my complete thoughts on the matter on the latest episode of DANNY DOES DULUTH titled "TO RECOUNT OR NOT TO RECOUNT". The podcast is found at www.dannydoesduluth.com

vicarious: the council already voted 6-3 in favor of repealing the ban (despite having no authority to actually repeal the ban). Bergson vetoed the measure and as I understand it Ness asked that the measure put before the council be tabled and put on the ballot in Lakeside and Lester Park instead.

The point several people seem to be missing is that neither a vote of the residents, a city council action or edict from the mayor can repeal the ban. Only the state legislature or the MN supreme court have the authority to repeal the ban. If one of y'all can find a state legislator who is willing to stick their neck out and support repealing the ban, more power to you. But recounting the ballots is pointless. It was useful to have the question on the ballot as we now know that the voting age population of those neighborhoods are split equally. And yes Craig, that will help to inform pubic policy. Of course Danny has a right to request a recount and I would be the first to defend that right. But that doesn't mean that it would be wise for him to exercise that right, as it will be completely ineffectual and wasteful (in my humble opinion) and that is the point I was trying to make.

Jerry would never give you up.
Jerry would never let you down.
Jerry would never run around and desert you.

Even non-binding, exercising the right might get some attention and help keep the issue alive.
A lot of what we and politicians do democratically is symbolic, why not this?

@ndy, I see your point, and concede the fact that "neither a vote of the residents, a city council action or edict from the mayor can repeal the ban." However, I view this referendum as a sort of demonstration of the will of the people. As much as I know that it can't directly change the law, it's an important part of the process.

But here's the real reason why this won't happen in the near future: No one cares enough to make an issue of it. No one organized on behalf of the repeal, and no one is going to spend hours out of their day demanding a symbolic recount. Until a substantial majority of Lakeside residents become raging alcoholics, no one is going to be fired up enough about this to incite change. Nonetheless, I have to say that it's a stupid law that reeks of xenophobia.

Roger are you for real ? Reeks of zenophobia ?? What do you smoke, ingest, or inject to come up with stuff like that ?

I think the "important part of the process" has occured. A vote was taken to see how much support there was for and against a repeal of the ban. The vote showed that the Lakeside area is pretty evenly divided on the issue. That may suprise or even dumbfound some of us, to the point of wanting a recount. But remember... unless something got really messed up, there is likely to be only a few votes shifted one way or the other.

If you are looking at this as a symbolic measure, well, I just don't think it would have the impact with people that you may be imagining it to have.

Roger-"No one cares enough to make an issue of it." seems to be the real source of the problem here. Those who do care enough ought to spearhead an effort to actually increase the public support for it through awareness and education. That is true democracy in action.
I disagree that nitpicking a few votes would be effective in achieving this.

That's what I meant by focusing energy in a more constructive direction.

Sigh...move to Superior and be done with it. Sure we aren't as sophisticated as you Hillside billy goats and Lakesiders but the taxes are cheaper and the liquor always flow. Seriously, why do you fight for something that you can get so easy anywhere else in the area. Is the area code identity that important to you?

My attributing support of the ban to xenophobia was unsupported. From the DNT, quoting a supporter of the ban:

“I think liquor attracts some bad characters.”

I read this as a fear that liquor being available for sale will attract non-resident "bad characters," and have seen this attitude present itself regularly in discussions of the issue.

Mrashley: Please don't demean my sense of home as the place where I was born, where I grew up, and where I now live as a form of snobbish "area code identity." This is my community, and as an active community member I have a voice and will, occasionally, have the gall to question the status quo.

Brett: I agree with you. I don't expect a recount would have much immediate impact at all. I'm concerned that after a few years, people will defend the liquor ban as legitimate because we voted, and "a majority" of residents supported it. The truth is, after all of this trouble, we still don't know what a majority of us voted for.

If I thought that history would regard this as an inconclusive referendum within the margin of error, I wouldn't be troubled by it. But, like you say, is it really worth the energy (and insults?)

Well, as I stated at the end of yesterday's DDD, I have given up on this whole endeavor. If anyone else wants to go ahead and start the process of collecting signatures, go for it. I'll be the first to sign. Just remember, the petition has to be filed by the 18th. Also, I still have a simple word doc saved with a petition thrown together. If anyone wants it, just let me know.

Danny

I'm really annoyed at myself for having failed to be more active about this--I just didn't feel like I had the time.

I just did a quick analysis--there were 6505 registered voters in Lakeside on the morning of election day, according to the Secretary of State's office. 5805 of them voted in the Presidential race, the highest total for any of the various races--and a total of 5715 people voted on the liquor issue. I was a little surprised that the percentage was that high, indicating more engagement with the issue than I might have expected.

Still, I think if you held another vote next Tuesday, the "yes" column might be higher, and the "no's" would remain pretty steady, or even drop, as I think a lot of people were surprised at how many of their neighbors supported the resolution.

That isn't going to happen, but I think we can put to rest once and for all the notion that Lakeside residents uniformly oppose allowing Demon Rum to gain a beachhead here. In a high turnout election, 49.99 percent of those with an opinion said "yes." I think that's significant, because that's a fundamentally different situation than most people seemed to be expecting, and that is where any discussion of this in the future must begin--no more of the DNT citing the NIMBY cranks who went to the council meeting last year as the voice of the community.

Again, (and not that I really care either way) there's the whole "overwhelming support" thing. 50.1% does not seem like overwhelming support.

And again, it's not a city issue. The council would have to take the "overwhelming support" to the state legislature, cuz it's a (albeit antiquated) state issue.

I think it's a little ridiculous that the standard for catching up with the 1930s is "overwhelming support," but clearly there isn't overwhelming support on either side. I expect that means nothing is going to happen for ten years, if ever. But I think the vote shows that the support for overturning the ban IS much greater than the conventional wisdom had it.

In 10 years, a large majority of the
"no" voters will be in the great beyond.

PEOPLE DON'T DRINK IN LAKESIDE

STOP TRYING TO CORRUPT THE POPULACE

Danny, I am sorry you decided not to pursue this petition to get liquor sold in Lakeside, you were actually acting like a grown-up for once.

Thanks. And I'm sorry.

I didn't pick that "ten years" thing completely out of thin air, chris :)