John Dale - Oct 08, 2024

Something you should know about me. I was an at-large delegate to the State Convention. As a home school project for our children, I ran for Mayor of Spearfish with a budget of $30 and my campaign received 246 votes! I own and operate one of the most trusted independent sources for information on controversial topics (Plains Tribune). Many state leaders, law enforcement, administrators, and elected officials seek out and trust my thoughtful opinions.

Many thanks to the BHSU College Republicans for organizing one of the best forums I've attended in almost 14 years. When I ran for Mayor of Spearfish, there was no debate. "Mayoral Forum" organizers inserted proverbial bull rings in our noses and led us around the real issues by our noses. I didn't run to make enemies. I knew I wouldn't win, but the Mayoral Forum was like turning over an old sheet of plywood next to the shed. What it lacked in surface substance it made up for in the reveal. Unlike my Mayoral forum, the event at BHSU put on by the College Republicans was a hybrid forum that allowed just enough debate to differentiate and discover a lot about the candidates, but the moderator retained authority to move on from entrenched and unproductive discussion.

The following is what I learned, but please note, these are my opinions and impressions and should not be considered absolute fact. Do your own research. Make your own decision.

Let's start by painting the back drop for an important aspect of the American political system.

First, according to Wikipedia, in the 2022 primary election, Mistie Caldwell garnered 1685 votes in a losing primary bid. Representative Mary Fitzgerald received 2544. 859 votes separated Fitzgerald and Caldwell.

Now, consider how voters decide. Candidates advocate for positions on issues. This is called their platform. Candidates can tinker with their platforms. The effects can be dramatic. Changing an opinion on cannabis, for instance, might add 600 voters to your camp, but at the same time might cause 650 to look elsewhere or even stay home on election day.

In that primary election, if a third candidate was running that was able to take 430 votes away from Fitzgerald while leaving Caldwell's votes intact, Caldwell would have won the primary. This is called "splitting the vote". Sometimes "controlled opposition" is involved. That's when a competing candidate is supported in order to affect the outcome of the election.

Of note is that the two Republicans that won the primary, Odenbach and Fitzgerald, ran unopposed in the general election and both were elected for a two year term in the South Dakota Legislature. It's tough to be a Democrat in this state and it must be tempting to cheat or to play things under the table.

Independent and Libertarian candidates can spoil elections by splitting the vote, allowing a candidates with minority support to win the election. Libertarian candidates in particular appeal to a surprisingly large number of Republicans in South Dakota because of their stances on limited government, free markets, and lower taxation, among other things. In Lawrence County, which enjoys a broad base of support for cannabis deregulation, Libertarian sentiments toward deregulation/legalization of cannabis loom over Fitzgerald's candidacy. Fitzgerald has been slowing coming to the issue on behalf of cannabis advocates in Lawrence County, but it is not entirely clear if that alone makes a difference given the number of prohibitionists that also live here. Cannabis is not the only issue in the platform, but it does represent a vote splitting opportunity for Lawerence County Democrats who demonstrate a lack of understanding of science, philosophy, and morality with respect to three huge issues; personal freedom (Liberty), abortion and election integrity.

So, candidates can be selected and run based on their ability to take votes away from a rival. These candidates are funded and supported on purpose by people who know that they won't win, but also knowing that they could damage the prospects of an opponent.

It happened in 2000 when Al Gore lost to George Bush by 537 votes in Florida. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes and the Gore campaign believed that without Nader on the ballot, most of those voters would have sided with Gore, and the election would have been won by the Gore team.

Of course, this assumes that a ballot stuffing operation by the Bush team would be incapable of or unwilling to manufacture the difference.

Now, with this as the back drop, Lawrence County voters should consider their up-coming decisions very carefully. What happens if McVickers wins enough votes to unseat Fitzgerald and Greenlee wins?

For the last two years, since Fitzgerald's victory, I have been getting unsolicited offers to run on an Independent ticket in Lawrence County to oppose Fitzgerald. I'm an honest Republican and switching party affiliations is not an option for me, even if they did offer me money when I was hard-up. Heck, for all I know, behind the scenes these operators might have worked to keep me hard-up to increase the likelihood I would accept.

In an election where I'm running as an Independent or Libertarian, Fitzgerald's political machine, knowledge, and resources would be too much for me to overcome in the vote total. Our platforms are too similar and differentiation would be very difficult. I also think Mary's pedigree as a multi-generational South Dakotan give her a huge advantage. Most of her voters agree with what she is doing and are happy with the job she is doing, but so many others seem to respond to the negative campaigning, conflating their general angst about America's struggles with Fitzgerald's practical, patient, slow, and conservative methods of working the South Dakota legislative system.

What I have experienced first hand with Fitzgerald is that she is responsive to communication, she creates learning opportunities, encourages participation and she is methodical in her conservative approach to inclusion (you don't let a child drive the bus). She is a policy nerd who has developed good working relationships with dozens of key South Dakota leaders. Mary is a flawed individual - like all of us - but she is also open to reason. The fact that she doesn't change directions or reconsider firmly held core believes quickly is a conservative feature of her representation. Fitzgerald is not a polished smooth operator and socialite, but what she lacks in Bill Clinton-esque moxie, she more than makes-up for in work ethic, life experience, and her network of supporters and friends. Okay. So, Fitzgerald is all steak, but not a lot of sizzle.

Mary's advocacy for my development as a civic operator and leader are genuine, unlike the people who are apparently recruiting me to split her Republican base in Lawrence County. I believe Democrat operatives in Lawrence county see my candidacy as a spoiler-fruit to be harvested to benefit one of their pro-abortion, anti-election-integrity, anti-republicanism candidates. If I run against Mary on an Independent or Libertarian ticket, I think Mary and I both lose.

As the South Dakota Primary Elections concluded, Shana McVickers stepped-up to run against Fitzgerald as an Independent. I can't help but wonder if the same people that were trying to recruit me recruited McVickers. A recent entrant onto the South Dakota political scene, McVickers' campaign platform is based on her frustration with Fitzgerald's lack of consideration of her ideas. She claimed that Fitzgerald did not return her communications and that spurred her to run for office. Did the Lawrence County Democrats latch onto her angst, and are they trying to parlay this into a loosely controlled opposition vote split strategy to oust Fitzgerald?

I like McVickers as a person. She and I share some of the same important core beliefs. She seems like a cool lady to hang out with and shoot the breeze and I could even see myself working on some local civic projects together. I commend her for wanting to get engaged. Regardless of the outcome, her candidacy is an opportunity to educate and learn and that is a good thing. McVickers' political disposition plays very Libertarian. She is an avowed cannabis legalization supporter, which would undoubtedly draw some of the conservative minded Libertarians in our county away from Fitzgerald since almost 7/10 people voted in South Dakota to legalize cannabis for the medical program (before adjusting for voter role fraud). McVickers is anti-government, anti-taxes, and anti-Fitzgerald, which will garner some votes.

The Democrats, a minority in Lawrence County, can be a tight knit group. Internally and through influence operations they have a good chance of retaining the support from the cannabis community. Fitzgerald's slow turn on the cannabis issue creates an opportunity for Greenlee and the Democrats to siphon Fitzgerald's Libertarian and Independent supporters. If turnout remains consistent, McVickers could muster Caldwell's audience to vote for her. McVickers' vote total could offset Fitzgerald's margin of victory against the Democratic Party's District 31 House candidate, Greenlee.

The Democrats in Lawrence County can't win on their platform alone as one might argue that supporting the big tenets of that platform represent a certifiable retardation. However, if the Democrats can split the vote there is a good chance of sliding into office and sticking District 31 with an agenda completely orthogonal to its true core values. These days, the Democrats seem to be willing to do most anything to perpetuate their conflation of abortion with healthcare. A vote splitting strategy seems rather benign and innocent compared to some of the depths to which their party seems willing to stoop as if abortion as birth control wasn't reprehensible enough (ladies, close your legs until you're ready for a family, the right to choose stops with the right to choose to have consensual sex cases of rape, incest, and imminent danger like tube pregnancy).

Victoria Greenlee, the Democratic candidate for District 31 House, is a avowed supporter of abortion. During the event she waxed poetic about how abortion is healthcare. She professed staunch support for women's rights, but apparently not baby women's rights. Greenlee left South Dakota and worked on Wall Street. In a disqualifying moment during the forum, Greenlee publicly professed her belief there is nothing wrong with the US electoral system. A former school teacher, she infantilized the legislature by comparing them to 6th-graders, but we should expect her to have a functional relationship in the legislature if elected? A victory for Greenlee is a recipe for intraction, and if elected she would likely find few friends and get little done as the District 31 Representative.

If Greenlee wins, Fitzgerald's ongoing legislative projects would wither and atrophy. If McVickers wins, forced to follow because of her inexperience and lack of support, she would be open to exploitation and influence operations to the detriment of Lawrence County.

But here is the rub. Without the help of a vote splitting (or some other) strategy, Greenlee has little realistic chance of getting elected in Lawrence County. Even with a good economic plan and motivated allies, being pro-abortion kills her appeal to the scientific minded philosophical pro-family thinkers that dominate Lawrence County's body politic. The Democrat platform is also in disarray right now as even Blue Dogs jump ship to save America from the globalists that currently dominate the Democrat Party platform with anti-America civic thrusts.

Whether McVickers realizes it or not, her candidacy poses a risk to human life. It also risks taking a very informed and hard working political representative out of office unduly. Either Greenly or McVickers being elected would significantly diminish the extent to which Lawrence County affects the creation and management of practical South Dakota law.

Consider the cannabis issue as a closing thought.

Cannabis advocates should realize that changing more than 100 years of corporate influence and propaganda against cannabis takes time. They should realize that Fitzgerald doesn't get led around by the nose and that she will only move on an issue when the time is right to move on an issue, cannabis included. Fitzgerald has proven to be open to reason, and she works at considering even fringe ideas, but she represents all of Lawrence county, not just the cannabis lobby. Continuing to work to change the perceptions of the rest of our county about cannabis should happen through deliberate and respectful educational work. If we are correct that cannabis is safer than alcohol, aspirin, water, cigarettes, fructose, fluoride, and slipping on the ice, I believe Fitzgerald will help the good guys in the cannabis community to conservatively roll-out our economy safely and efficaciously. Other issues will work through Fitzgerald's office the same way (conservatively). Please be careful how you spend your vote this November.

Figureheads, policy analysts, and social/political scientists like me will continue push for civically sensible governance, especially after the election. As I survey the up-coming opportunities to champion the issues that matter most - abortion, freedom, morality, cannabis, taxes, economy - Odenbach notwithstanding, I see daylight with a Fitzgerald victory while a Greenlee/McVickers victory will be very disruptive to several very delicate long running legislative initiatives.