Press "Enter" to skip to content

Sioux Falls Dumps Gant’s E-Poll Books; Back to Voting at Your Precincts!

Sioux Falls is knocking down one of the last bricks of Jason Gant’s dubious legacy as Secretary of State. For next week’s municipal and school board elections, the city is throwing out Gant’s vaunted electronic poll book voting centers and returning to precinct voting. Gant’s bright idea costs too much:

Sioux Falls first implemented voting centers in 2012 under a pilot project launched by former Secretary of State Jason Gant. The pilot allowed local election authorities to establish voting centers in lieu of precincts.  Voting centers use what are called e-poll books, a database of registered voters that reflects in real time when a ballot is cast by a registered voter. Basically, when a ballot was cast at one voting center, election workers at other voting centers were notified, ensuring votes aren’t duplicated.

Under the pilot, cities and school districts were able to lease e-poll books from the Secretary of State’s Office. Starting this year, though, e-poll books are required to be purchased outright by local election authorities.

“Once the pilot was completed, then it would be up to that jurisdiction if they wanted to keep using them,” said Shantel Krebs, Gant’s successor as South Dakota Secretary of State.

In Sioux Falls, Greco said that would have cost the City Clerk’s Office about $225,000 for the 100 or so needed for the 13 voting centers.

“We’d have to buy them and we’re not in a position to spend a quarter million dollars on that technology,” he said [Joe Sneve, “Voting Centers Nixed for City, School Board Elections,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2016.04.04].

..and, contrary to the expectation that using technology to network voting stations and let people choose where they want to vote would make elections run more smoothly, Gant’s plan created more confusion and delay:

“It’s pretty confusing and frustrating to voters when they go to one place and think they can vote there, and then we have the same place, but it’s just a precinct and not everybody can go there. We thought if we made all those places common that it would have helped during those types of elections, but actually it probably added to the confusion,” [Minnehaha County Auditor Bob] Litz added.

…Assigned precinct voting should also make the process go smoother.

“When I print a poll book, I don’t have to convert it into the electronic poll book that’s got everybody in it. I can break it down into the precincts instead of breaking it down into the electronic version, which left gaps for mischief in there,” Litz said [link mine; Mark Roper, “Precinct Voting Returns to Sioux Falls,” KSFY-TV, 2016.03.03].

Sioux Falls voters, find your precinct voting station on this map or use the official Vote 605 app on your phone (ah! something Gant did that still works!), and get out and vote next Tuesday, April 12!


  1. John Kennedy Claussen 2016-04-08 18:40

    “Super Precincts,” or what I like to call them “Suppression Precincts,” definitely need to go and I am thankful the City is not using them this time around.

    However, I do not believed the Sioux Falls School Board as actually taken a position on this issue going forward. It is merely the coinciding City and Board elections which removes the “Super Precincts” from the equation for this City/Board election cycle. But what will happen in 2017, when only the Board has elections? Will they find the $ 225,000 (HB 1182 could conceivably give them some cash flow (?)) or conveniently split the cost with the City in the future? Who knows? Hopefully, our City and Board leaders will heed the message that super precincts are not only costly, but they are also not super…… rather they are merely suppressive….

  2. Bob Klein 2016-04-08 18:59

    Allowing people to vote at any polling place in the jurisdiction surely must improve voter turnout. Improved voter turnout generally helps Democrats, right?

    On the other hand, all the information I’ve seen indicates that voter id laws suppress voter turnout, particularly among those most likely to vote Democrat.

    New things confuse people. Over time, people will get used to the idea that they don’t have to vote at the church on 17th Avenue and 8th Street South in order that their vote count. They’ll be able to vote close to where they work, play, or shop as opposed to where they live.

    I’m suspicious that the goal of Bob Litz is to increase voter turnout.

  3. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-09 00:30

    Bob Litz assured the voters in 2014 that the vote would be tabulated early, unlike 2012. I t was early alright, early the next morning. And yet he was reelected.

  4. leslie 2016-04-09 00:37

    Just thinking about national and international big-picture lessons:

    Small minorities of angry people, when well-organized, can outshout the divided, fearful, apathetic centrist majority in Western Europe—and Russia is prepared to help them do it. This time the stakes [on Ukrain’s trade agreement] weren’t so high, but next time, they might be: The far-right is now the largest political force in the Netherlands. We learned a parallel lesson in the 1930s, but it seems we need to be taught it once again.

    Anne Applebaum is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author.

  5. MOSES 2016-04-09 00:47

    Lanny hes a republican what do you expect in this state they vote for a dog over a democrat.

  6. leslie 2016-04-09 02:10

    lanny, u previously said watch out for bankers, the unprosecuted.

    a huge political presence in SD, “Wells Fargo on Feb. 3 said the settlement would reduce its previously reported 2015 profit by $134 million, to account for extra legal expenses.” it fought, unlike Bank of America Corp, Citigroup Inc, Deutsche Bank AG and JPMorgan Chase & Co, who previously settled similar federal lawsuits.

    But Wells Fargo held out, and its payment is the largest in FHA history over loan origination violations.

  7. mike from iowa 2016-04-09 12:30

    Has anybody sat down and tried to figure out how much money the previous SOS wasted for the state? Must be a pretty penny.

  8. David Bergan 2016-04-09 23:47

    From a technology perspective… what’s so hard here? It sounds like we’re talking about a one-page website hooked up to a database with 1 table… created with 100% open source (aka free) software. No need for $2,250 “e-poll books” (whatever those are), any device with an Internet connection could check citizens in. (Let the poll station volunteers use their own smartphones or buy some $100 tablets.) If a voter tries to check in twice in the same day… don’t give them a ballot.

    I think I could program this in about 2 hours. (Assuming I had access to the state voter registration data table and a data table of voting centers.) Maybe 4 to make it look really pretty.

    Am I missing something?

    Kind regards,

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-04-10 15:02

    David, if you can show me secure technology that works, I’ll invite you to run for Secretary of State in 2018… or I suppose you could send your pitch directly to Secretary Krebs. :-)

    And while you’re at it, could you add in e-petition functionality?

  10. David Bergan 2016-04-10 15:41

    Hi Cory,

    The voting center technology is essentially a stripped-down version of my core business. Optilegra members check-in to a vision center to use their plan benefits, and we make sure that they don’t use the benefits twice. Members get one eye exam per year, so once they “check-in” their exam benefit, our website doesn’t allow them to get authorized for another one until their year is up.

    As for security, with a system this simple, security really shouldn’t be a problem. There’s really only two kinds of transactions to process… voter lookup (which is basically identical to the Vote605 app) and ballot check-out.

    I would give each poll-worker a username and then we let that username be authorized for one device only (they can switch authorization from one device to another, but only be authorized on one given device for any given election day). Let them use their own personal laptop, tablet, or whatever device they’re most comfortable using. They just need a web browser.

    All ballot check-outs from their device are recorded under their username… so if there is any ballot fraud or misauthorizations, we know who (and which device) to investigate. That’s certainly more secure than the status quo, which is highlighting a line from a huge list of printed names.

    E-petitions would be trickier. I’d give myself 40 hours for that one. :)

    Kind regards,

  11. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-04-13 19:04

    David, when I take over the Secretary of State’s office, you are hired.

  12. grudznick 2016-04-13 19:14

    I bet you a bacon and gravy tater breakfast there are some people at the state who won’t let that sort of simple solution happen because it would put them out of a job.

  13. David Bergan 2016-04-14 14:35

    Hi Grudznick,

    You’re probably right. When I did consulting with some other businesses, they too had laid off workers because “technology made obsolete” their former position.

    The politics of jobs… If we all think one or two hundred years into the future, we can imagine computers and robots doing almost all of our labor for us. This, I think, is a good thing. On the other hand, if we think back one or two hundred years, we can see all the work that we don’t have to do now… like plow a field behind a team of oxen, mine quarries with pickaxes, etc. We would have more jobs, if we ditched all technology everywhere. (Don’t tell the politicians, they might be crazy enough to do that.)

    The real reason we want politicians to create/protect jobs is not because we like doing work… it’s because that’s how we get paid. No job = no wages; and no wages = not enjoying the finer points of life (gravy taters and bacon).

    Human population is increasing. Amount of work needing to be done by humans is decreasing. This is a conundrum that will force us to re-evaluate our economic foundation. If we continue on the path we’re on, a handful of corporations (aka people) will own all the machines that do all the work and they will, consequently, make all the wages. The have-nots don’t have stock in these companies, and without wages, could never buy in. They need an income, and with no other options, they go onto some sort of welfare program. Eventually welfare encompasses 90% of the population. To pay for that, the government taxes the profit of the corporations 90%.

    In theory, it works. But I fear the transition.

    Kind regards,

  14. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-25 13:03

    All I can say David Bergan, if it caught on worldwide, the last place that it would ever be is the United States of America. They hate socialism here and the disregard and or disdain, that white America shows for Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, alcoholics, drug addicted, homeless and anyone that is not mainstream, shows just how selfish we are.

  15. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-04-26 16:28

    Basic income—the basic social policy of Earth three centuries from now, in the Federation. Will machines be able to do all of what Straub calls B.S. jobs, the work from which no one gains satisfaction?

    Lanny, Americans may hate socialism, but what alternative will we have in the face of the industrial forces David identifies?

    If we all had a basic income, a lot more people would have a lot more time to vote, run for office, and participate in political campaigns.

  16. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-26 17:50

    Hey Cory, You are preaching to the choir. I was a socialist long before I ever came on your blog. That is the main reason why I so vehemently oppose the funding of any part of government with sales tax. It may be constitutional, but it is definitely immoral, no matter what you or grudznick or any of the other trolls that you allow to come on your blog and make a mockery of the discussions to be found here.

  17. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-26 17:55

    I want to alter that last comment. Other people have different opinions and that is fine, but your buddy grudznick is a troll and ruins many conversations on your blog.

  18. Troy 2016-04-26 18:08

    The economic model/philosophy articulated by David Bergan is a form of Ludditism.

    For three hundred years now, we have been hearing that machines are going to lead to massive unemployment but it has never happened. Work has changed, productivity is increased, and standard of living has improved. Instead of 100 people growing food on the farm, we now have 10 families growing food and 90 people making air conditioners, computers, and cell phones.

    Personally, I’m going to bet with history (entrepreneurs and businesses will continue to find ways to meet unlimited wants/improvement in the human condition) vs. a prediction that might be like finding a unicorn (Ludditism).

    P.S. The idea that businesses can have revenue and make a profit in a world where nobody works/has income is ludicrous. Without people being employed, there is no effective demand as they can’t pay for anything.

  19. grudznick 2016-04-26 18:45

    Mr. Stricherz is righter than right that most Americans hate socialism. It’s for the weak minded and unambitious. Most Americans are smartly ambitious. Even more South Dakotans.

  20. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-26 18:54

    Hi Mr troll. You have no idea how strong or weak minded am I, nor whether or not I am or ever was ambitious. I will put my work record up against yours any day of the week, even though since you are so ambiguous as to use a fake name, I have no idea who you are or what you ever did with your pathetic life. The fish should be biting soon, so why don’t you take your trolling to some pond, stream or lake?

  21. grudznick 2016-04-26 19:10

    Mr. Stricherz, grudznick got your goat.

  22. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-26 19:18

    Mr Troll, you used that line the other night. You are a goat, an old goat.

  23. Porter Lansing 2016-04-26 20:12

    Is that milk gravy or brown gravy?

  24. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-04-26 21:45

    Troy, you do have empirical historical data on your side. Lots of us keep finding ways to make ourselves wage-earningly useful. But will entrepreneurs keep looking for ways to put messy humans to work when the new machines aren’t just dumb brutes but sleek thinking machines? I can sympathize with David’s concern that technology is reducing the range of opportunities for men like my dad, who is not an abstract thinker or a communicator but has powerful manual and mechanical intelligence.

  25. John Kennedy Claussen 2016-04-26 22:16

    Bill Gates in the last two years has expressed a concern for the future of the American workforce due to robots:

    But recently he has also expressed a way to enhance employment. However, I question if his interest in R & D jobs can adequately address the need in the future for jobs for those with “manual and mechanical intelligence.” Especially during a time of transition for many in the American workforce as they are asked in a cultural and or attitudinal sense to change from being those who value work and accomplishment with their hands to those who would then work increasingly with their brainpower:

  26. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-04-27 06:07

    I should note that my friend David is not a Luddite: he’s not opposed to mechanization and automation. He would much rather have a Google car whisk him across town than get all sweaty biking across town. ;-)

    If Troy’s historical bet has any accuracy, it may hinge on his postscript: “The idea that businesses can have revenue and make a profit in a world where nobody works/has income is ludicrous. Without people being employed, there is no effective demand as they can’t pay for anything.” The need to protect demand won’t motivate individual businesses at first: if UPS can gain a competitive advantage over other package handlers by completely automating its services, replacing every driver with drones, UPS will do it, and CEO Abney will laugh all the way to the bank. UPS will still have plenty of demand as long as millions of Americans have jobs in other sectors.

    The fit won’t hit the shan until that UPS automation is replicated across industries, until McDonalds, Monsanto, Mitsubishi, and Menards (imagine Google trucks with arms building houses) completely automate their production and every labor force sector besides programmers stands at 50% or greater unemployment. We won’t all have cities to flee to for jobs the way we did when the mechanization of agriculture reduced the need for labor in that sector. Everywhere we displaced workers will turn, we will meet employers in most sectors who will be able to make more product and more money with fewer workers.

    Then employers will hit Troy’s ludicrousness wall, where the number of displaced workers will cause a crash in paychecks and purchasing. Programmers alone won’t buy enough cheese balls to keep all those automated businesses afloat. Government won’t take in enough tax revenue to prop up the economy with food stamps and Earned Income Tax Credits. Then the tycoons will have to work together to get humans working, earning, and spending again. Together is a key word: McDonalds won’t repopulate its workforce just to provide wages and demand for the tycoons at Monsanto and Mitsubishi who sit back on their robotic haunches laughing at McDonalds for reducing its profit margins while they keep relying on the new do-everything machines.

    And at that point, we may need socialism, a centrally planned economy straight out of Edward Bellamny’s Looking Backward. Can Troy’s Invisible Hand work fast enough to address modern automation?

  27. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-27 06:53

    But Cory, there will still be a need for crooks to run the banks and other industries, read insurance, healthcare, all the aspects of finances and of course government. That is what changed me from a capitalist to a socialist.

  28. mike from iowa 2016-04-27 08:13

    “The idea that businesses can have revenue and make a profit in a world where nobody works/has income is ludicrous. Without people being employed, there is no effective demand as they can’t pay for anything

    Antebellum plantations/slaves and Appalachian coal mines/company stores beg to differ.

  29. Troy 2016-04-27 08:30

    A few quick points:

    1) Technology is a tool of the better idea. They still need the people to devise the idea and execute on it. This is why they will still be putting people to work.

    2) I didn’t say David was a Luddite but what he described as the future (machines replacing humans and leaving people unemployed) is what Ludditism predicted.

    3) Empirical data: What nations today are doing best? Those who are using technology. People with a shovel can’t compete with a person in a backhoe. People with an abacus can’t compete with a spreadsheet.

    Over the last 10 years, America has experienced 10 of the 11 worst years for starting a new business. This is a bigger threat to job and wage growth than machines because these are the businesses which create the most innovation, provide the jobs which demand the most creativity of its employees (proportionally), and provide the insurgent competition to large business.

    The second biggest threat is the zero-sum focus on minimum wage. I know that $15 is a good livable wage and I desire it for everyone. The problem is that many jobs aren’t worth paying $15 an hour. When a job isn’t worth $15, it won’t exist. Period. There are a lot of people who for a lot of reasons need a job even if it pays $8 an hour because a job does more for a person than just pay. It keeps them off the streets or home drinking/beating their wives. It teaches them skills they otherwise don’t have which can serve them a lifetime. And, most critically, it feeds their dignity while doing nothing sucks their dignity dry.

    The debate about a mandatory $15 wage has had adverse consequences for the lower class. Businesses like McDonald’s are looking at automation options which doesn’t use current wages to assess automation but a much higher wage. Thus, the decision to automate will happen even though employees aren’t getting paid $15 an hour (lost jobs with no change in wages).

    The debate is also having an impact on businesses whose employees wouldn’t be directly impacted by the minimum wage but who can’t afford an increase in their wage costs. The consequent wage compression from raising the minimum wage will impact their costs so they too are looking at automation with a threshold for moving forward that otherwise wouldn’t be considered. They are doing so for two reasons: Insure they have capacity to meet production and protect against the consequent need for them to adjust payroll costs.

    The above are all micro-economic decision-making that is being impacted just by the debate. But, there are macro-economic decisions being made. The advocates of the $15 minimum wage believe it will have a redistributive effect and they are right. It will ultimately redistribute wealth to the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Most economists think the primary impact of such a large mandated change in wage rates will concentrate the effect in two places:

    1) Inflation which will increase the value of investments. Who holds the bulk of the investable wealth in this nation?

    2) Change the competitive landscape of American goods and services relative to the world. Who do you think can move their production or access cheaper overseas production capacity? The poor or the wealthy?

    You folks would be surprised at all the ways I would support governmental inspired and lead paradigm shifts in the economy focused on improving the condition and opportunity for those with greater economic challenges and systemic adverse conditions. Raising the minimum wage will have adverse unintended consequences for the poor that will be devastating, good intentions not withstanding.

  30. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 08:54

    In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, “In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or “no negative effect” on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.”

  31. David Bergan 2016-04-27 09:00

    “There are a lot of people who for a lot of reasons need a job even if it pays $8 an hour because a job does more for a person than just pay. It keeps them off the streets or home drinking/beating their wives. It teaches them skills they otherwise don’t have which can serve them a lifetime. And, most critically, it feeds their dignity while doing nothing sucks their dignity dry.”

    Hi Troy,

    There is truth in this. For some people idleness leads quickly to despair, depression, and addiction.

    On the other hand, for some people they can get to despair, depression, and addiction by being stuck in a bs job to pay the bills while longing to create books, music, or art. (Or legislation?) Doing something totally banal also takes its psychological toll. That was the point of this article (linked within my other article).

    “A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish. (Many suspect it might markedly improve.)”

    (Bailiffs, huh)

    I have more thoughts, but this Luddite hates diserrtating from his smart phone.

    Kind regards,

  32. Troy 2016-04-27 10:12


    I agree there is truth to your “on the other hand.” I think though that is related to a different disorder. We are human beings and not human doers. Our ultimate value is not found in what we do (as in our job). A father or mother who needs to “create books, music or art” or in my case play golf at a higher level to fall into despair, depression, and addiction has disordered both their priorities and where they find satisfaction. Instead of lamenting the banality of their job, one can appreciate how when they leave their place of employment they also leave the banality behind and can focus on “being” vs. “doing.”

    Further, I reject the premise that anyone is truly stuck anywhere. The power of the human will is amazing in what it can accomplish. My grandfather delayed marriage and worked for six years (didn’t graduate from high school) in a job he absolutely hated. He worked as many hours a week in a second job as a farmhand until he could buy some land and become a farmer/rancher.

    To remove the sense of being stuck, a person has to reach the conclusion much if not all of their current condition is the result of either their personal bad choices (didn’t apply themself in school, etc.) or the bad choices of their parents. Good choices can overcome bad choices and today is the day to plant that tree of making good choices.

    I’m going to change the facts below to protect identity but not the essence of the story.

    I know two people very well who both made many of the same decisions at an early age (bad education effort, drugs, idleness) which continued for both into their twenties. One chose to start at the bottom of a most menial job, got sober (has had relapses over the years) but has in the end a good life with a great family. The other refused to take any responsibility for a lack of education and skills, blamed everyone who has ever been in his life, and has a problem getting the most menial jobs, never had a meaningful relationship, and is estranged from everyone who loves him.

    My point is despair, depression and addiction is less about condition than it is just acknowledgement condition can change with better choices.

  33. Jenny 2016-04-27 10:42

    You have a lot to learn about the poor, Troy.

    Grudzie how do you like that socialist social security check you get every month? And how about that socialist medicare health insurance card you have that pays the majority of your healthcare? Nice, huh?

  34. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 11:03

    Good one, Jenny.
    Troy Jones, Grudz and the SoDak Republican faithful speak only from the perspective of “WHITE PRIVILEGE” and that’s the only perspective they care to occupy, inspect or contemplate. They expect the poor, elderly, women and minorities to do what those of “white privilege” do to get ahead and when the poor, elderly, women and minorities have hardships along the way they are judged with scorn and disdain, called slackers and lazy losers and discounted for having made bad choices. Mr. Jones et al … you have so many benefits built in to your life just by birth that you deserve our liberal pity for your lack of common perspective and your shallow view of our wonderful world. But you also deserve our criticism for refusing to “learn about the poor” as Jenny so well put.

  35. crossgrain 2016-04-27 11:11

    “My point is despair, depression and addiction is less about condition than it is just acknowledgement condition can change with better choices.”

    You have a lot to learn about depression (and addiction), Troy. Nobody chooses to be born with short alleles of the 5-HTT gene.

  36. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 11:16

    Hey, Grudz … Chef (me) put vinegar on ‘yer potatoes.

  37. mike from iowa 2016-04-27 11:35

    What nations today are doing best?

    Who gets to define best? People that make do w/o every modern necessity are likely to be happier and probably have better mental health/peace of mind.

  38. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-27 11:37

    Mr Lansing and others, You are casting stones in general and have at least one of the people that you mentioned all wrong. I am pretty sure that Troy doesn’t know who I am from a sack of flour. But I can tell you that Troy is fair and compassionate. How do I know? It’s a kind of long story.

    I retired from my last job at the age of 62 because, I thought that I had enough money to live on until I died. At the time there were over three million people unemployed and I had a decent job that I thought that someone else could do and use the income.

    I took to volunteering and fishing. I did that until the financial crisis in 2008, in which a lot of the money that I thought was going to last for the rest of my life, got wiped out.

    So rather than apply for a job that would be taking away from somebody who really needed a job, I applied for the shoe shine job where Troy plays golf. I did not ask about a wage, because I thought that with my ability, (aquired when I was in the Army) I could easily earn 15 to 20 bucks an hour shining shoes. The pro called me after I was hired and told me that he had gotten the minimum wage for me.

    Well, it turned out that Troy and some of the other folks at the club paid me very well for the shines that I put on their shoes. But there were others who did not, in fact paid me nothing. I had to be there a certain number of hours a week, to clean toilets and the locker room and wash towels etc. When there was nothing to do, I looked for work to do, like cleaning empty lockers or fixing ones that were broken, rather than just sitting around.

    At the end of the year I figured it out that I had earned just over 10 bucks an hour, and I did not find that acceptable, so I made a proposal that I wanted 11 bucks an hour and to start charging so much for a shine and for replacing cleats in the golfer shoes. I would also not work as many hours because I would not look for busy work to keep busy. The golf committee and the pro agreed to that. But when the following season started, the lady pro indicated that I would only get the minimum plus 25 cents an hour.

    We left the other charges in place except that she also lowered the price for shining a pair of golf shoes to 3 bucks, the same as street shoes, and many of the guys who had automatically given me 5 or 10 bucks the year before, stayed with the three. Troy still paid me as well as he had the year before.

    When I quit, the club would have paid me less money at the 11 bucks and hour, than they had the year before at the minimum and having me there looking for busy work to stay busy, and that was in spite of the fact that the golf season started almost a month earlier that second year.

    So you folks need to lighten up on Troy. He has a set of principles that may differ from yours, but then so do I, and you probably each differ a little or a lot from other posters on this blog.

  39. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 11:50

    Great story, Mr. Stricherz.
    Troy Jones and probably you too post on Dakota Free Press because you enjoy the company and commentary of liberals. Not because you think you can “change” us. But because subconsciously you really want to be like us. Somewhere in your youth you were raised by someone with limited experience who made you believe that putting yourself ahead of others and holding down the unfortunate was how you should act. We believe that when the group of USA citizens does better, top to bottom, that’s how we are judged. If Troy Jones and the rest of your “grizzly group” of Republicans didn’t really envy us you’d post only on Pat Powers blog where nobody would read it and you’d feel part of something … anything.

  40. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-27 11:55

    Mr Lansing, So you are a liberal? Who do you support, Hillary or Sanders?

  41. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 12:41

    I don’t know, Mr. Stricherz. I really admire and respect both Hillary and Bernie. I do know that I fully support and will contribute to Paula Hawks, Jay Williams, (friend of our family) Bernie Hunhoff, Sam Hurst and Cory Heidelberger.

  42. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-27 12:48

    So what you are saying, as long as they have a D behind their name on the ballot, you support them, is that correct? How is that different from those in our state who vote for anyone as long as they have an R behind their name?

  43. Troy 2016-04-27 12:50

    Oh my gosh, hi Lanny. I never knew your last name or if I did, I never made the connection. In reality, I don’t always look at names that close as even what appears to be a real name could just be a pseudonym.

    I don’t deserve being called “generous” as you did a real good job. While I did enjoy interacting with you personally, I doubt my tip was driven by liking you personally. Just appreciation for you being there and doing more than expected, every time. Also, just note that keeping the locker room clean and in good order was appreciated and I’m sure I didn’t express that appreciation enough even though intuitively I knew that was your domain. I’m sorry for both of us. A grateful heart is good for me and you deserved to hear it.

    For reasons that are personal, I’m not as extroverted as I was when you saw me so when I’m in public I’m not looking to interact as much as most (call me stuck up if you want, it is just who and were I am now) and eschew large gatherings outside my normal haunts. So, if you see me someplace, please come up and re-introduce yourself. Love to catch up.

    Porter, I don’t want to be like you or anybody else. I want to be the best version as possible of who I was made to be (achieved by Grace) and believe me when I say participating in blogging is neither a positive or negative in that aspiration except when it diverts me from that which is infinitely more important.

  44. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 13:37

    Mr. Stricherz, Thanks for pointing out that Troy Jones is a member of THE COUNTRY CLUB OF SIOUX FALLS and also believes he’s an “expert” on poor people. Sound like a disconnect, liberal brethren? Maybe that’s because what he believes and works at has helped create so many of them.
    -You asked me if I support “all” Dems? Are you asking me if I’ll participate in a question for question “quid pro quo” exchange with you? I don’t schedule answering Republican’s questions until Saturday afternoon but if you want me to answer one with full honesty then you need to agree to answer a question of mine with full honesty. You up for it?
    -Thanks, Troy … Just trying to see what “bait” you jump at these days. You’ve become a bit long winded and cryptic. I know people and I can sense what they have inside and you sir love being around liberals. Your desires are subconscious so it’s still unknown to you; until you address why you feel a need to speak to we liberals, continually.

  45. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-27 13:41

    Talk about long winded, yes, I am up to it. What is your question? Please don’t make me wait until Saturday though, because I will be out of town.

  46. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 13:53

    Here’s your answer. NO, I don’t support any candidate with a D behind their name.
    I’ll have to think of what I want to learn from you, for a while. You owe me one.

  47. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-27 15:43

    Mr Lansing, ” member of THE COUNTRY CLUB OF SIOUX FALLS”? That sounds like penis envy to me. How do you spend your money?

    So you don’t support ANY candidate with a D behind their name? Does that mean you support those with an R or an L or an I behind their name? You claim you are a liberal, so I asked, who do you support Hillary or Bernie? That seems pretty straight forward to me. I just wanted to find out whether you support a true liberal or a LINO?

    If you have read many of my posts on various of Cory’s blogs, you would know that I don’t think that you can call most Democrats liberal. The last 3 Democrat presidents and Hillary for sure have all been to the right of Richard Nixon.

  48. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 16:33

    Easy there, Prince. My family’s had Westward Ho members since before Jones was born. You asked two questions but only agreed to trade one. I don’t support “any” candidate with a D, just some of them. Next question is still under our negotiation. You take Trump. I’ll take Clinton. Winner shines the other’s shoes. Deal? Offer ends today.

  49. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 16:38

    Sorry, Mr. Strichertz,
    I’m at work. I meant loser shines the winner’s shoes ( no mud or dung involved). You for Trump. Me for Clinton.

  50. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-27 16:41

    That isn’t a question that is a trumped up (pun intended) deal, so no deal. I will probably have to leave the country, since I said I would if either one of them won.

  51. Lanny V Stricherz 2016-04-27 16:42

    If you review my questions, the first one I asked was between Hillary and Bernie.

  52. Porter Lansing 2016-04-27 17:29

    Awww …… don’t leave the USA. We need citizens like you. #serious

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.