 |  |
| King County Councilman Bob "Flipper" Ferguson | "Flipper" Ferguson explains his election reform plan |
But now that I-25 has qualified for the ballot, Ferguson has flip-flopped again. He introduced an ordinance to coopt the 2007 I-25 charter change vote by presenting an alternative ordinance. Instead of the 2009 vote for a partisan office, that was his stalling tactic last year, his new stalling tactic is for a 2008 charter change vote for a non-partisan office. If his fellow Ds sign on, it would mean (and it's so ridiculous I couldn't possibly make this up, but this is what Ferguson wants to do. Be sure to swallow your beverage before reading this): Instead of adopting I-25 and having the voters approve the charter change in November 2007, and elect the first elections director in February 2008, Ferguson would place two different measures on the November 2007 ballot and we'd vote on both of them separately:
a) (a castrated version of I-25): Shall we vote again in 2008 to change the charter, and if that passes vote for the first elections director in February 2009?
b) (Ferguson's alternative): Shall we vote again in 2008 to change the charter, and if that passes vote for the first elections director with a primary in August 2009 and a general election in November 2009?
And if either of (a) or (b) got a majority in November 2007, whichever one got the most votes would set up the next vote in November 2008.
Seriously. Instead of ensuring we have an accountable elections director in 2 elections and in office in time for the 2008 presidential election, Ferguson wants to delay reform until November 2009 and make us vote 4 times! And all we get to vote on this November is whether to vote again next year on the same issue. Clearly, this is nothing other than a cheesy tactic to obstruct badly needed and broadly demanded reforms of the elections office. And Ferguson's plan to delay having a charter change vote in November 2007 is inherently based on these assumptions:
1) voters WILL approve the charter change
2) voters WILL elect someone other than the Council's choice in February 2008
3) the newly elected person WILL kill the reckless mail-only voting plan that Ferguson supported
If I'm wrong that this is what he's assuming then why would Ferguson oppose holding a charter change vote this year?
The only consistency between Ferguson's opposition to a charter change vote in 2006 and one in 2007 is that in both cases he's opposed to holding the vote because he knows that "if it's on the ballot, it will pass"
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 28, 2007 06:38 PM | Email ThisOh yes they did purchase 3 of the million dollar porta drug out houses recently.
Thank goodness
Posted by: gs on August 28, 2007 07:09 PMThat's pretty good.
You are trying to wield power, yet NOBODY appointed you, much less elected you.
You have gone from watchdog to reactionary in a single day.
You would make a good shill for the Bush Administration, though. Politicize everything, spend as much taxpayer money as you can, and then still try to call yourself a conservative with a straight face.
Posted by: Nancy on August 28, 2007 10:01 PMWhat your likely to get is an elections director supported by the democratic party who will support the actions of the democratic council and executive. The only difference is that no matter how incompetent you'll have to wait 4 years for replacement.
However, from time to time, corruption, indifference, incompetence, or just a realization of how important a government job is has caused the people to decide that they no longer have the confidence in some representatives to allow a job to be appointed any longer. Ferguson's actions (or inactions) are an example where The People's representatives fall down on the job.
Such is the case with the position of auditor for King County.
Erroneously mailing out thousands of duplicate ballots, missing counting of hundreds of ballots, finding ballots multiple times over the course of multiple recounts, having poor procedures that encouraged some to illegally put provisional ballots through Accuvote machines, and having an error laden registration system all coming together in time for the election of the Governor to be decided by slightly more than a hundred votes forced skepticism and distrust on the appointed elections director.
On top of this, confidence in the system was severely depressed and the KC Executive that was in charge of appointing the elections head did virtually nothing to effectively address any of the issues surrounding the debacle.
I-25 is a result of The People finally deciding that elections are important. Too important to be entrusted to "representatives" that care more for their position and power than for the right of the people for free, clean, legal, and accurate elections.
The People have declared that elections are so important to our form of government that they should directly decide who will represent them in overseeing the elections department.
The new auditor will not be able to hide behind the executive or the council. The new auditor will have to defend themself and their department directly to The People.
If you want free, clean and legal elections, then why wouldn't you want to have direct input into who is the director of the department charged with keeping the elctions free? If this function of government is as important as we now say it is, then I-25 is the right way to go.
Sure, we could elect a party hack. We do it all the time, but nobody has said that those jobs are too important to be entrusted to The People's vote.
Elections are important. Important enough for The People to take a more direct say in how they are managed and run.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 29, 2007 07:29 AMUkraine has more Democracy that wa state.
Posted by: pbj on August 29, 2007 08:08 AMThis sort of obfuscation, even if with a rational argument, is really obstructive. And upon review it doesn't hold water either.
The reasons this argument fails are pretty much the same as the reason the 'large county' argument fails. We shouldn't establish democracy because the election is too big or the county is too big??? Phfffbt.
Although I like the variety of profiles presented to us by almost all of the KC Councilmembers it is disturbing that a deeper look reveals problems. Witness also Hague's efforts at hiding her DUI in order to continue the County's problems with elections.
I am beginning to think that there is something bigger than just a continuing problem with elections. It is a good bet that a shared alcohol abuse is part of that problem too.
-Doug
Tacoma, WA
And the dictionary, and the law. Incompetence is incompetence; fraud is fraud; bad tippers are bad tippers. But one bad thing is not the same as another bad thing.
And Bridges didn't say that anything threw the 2004 election. Stefan did.
Posted by: Bruce on August 29, 2007 03:41 PM