Seattle City Council races? oy.
Vote for Bruce Harrell, not because I'm impressed with his positions, or because he's articulated many good reasons to vote for him. But because his opponent Venus Velazquez is the most toxic and divisive major candidate we've seen here in a while. The race-baiting, the McCarthy-style nastiness, the lack of personal responsibility. Yecch.
Judi Fenton is a token, no-hope challenger to Sally Clark. But a worthwhile protest vote against the dopey status quo.
None of the above in the Jean Godden vs. Joe Szwaja race.
David Della vs. Tim Burgess? I started the campaign season liking them both, at least relative to the other candidates. Burgess has written some great op-eds in the Times about law enforcement that have impressed me. Della, on the other hand, had the good sense to call for a rebuilt Viaduct at a time when nearly all the other Councilmembers were supporting the irresponsible Tunnel. He also had a few other votes that were stunning for their fiscal responsibility. I would have preferred that Burgess take out a different incumbent. But he's also running on a surface-gridlock platform. The campaign has featured some of the nastiest, most dishonest and least intelligent mudslinging I've seen in any campaign. Burgess's transformation from Republican to progressive Democrat is as fascinating as Richard Pope's conversion. I'd be okay if both lost, but I'll vote for one or the other. I haven't yet decided whom.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 05, 2007 12:35 PM | Email ThisThat track record won over conservative papers, who eventually even endorsed him in subsequent runs for council.
Joe opposed the Tunnel. Jean supported it. Joe opposes Prop 1, Jean supports this huge tax increase... the largest ever proposed in the state.
Also Joe is totally knowledgeable on many of the issues you care about concerning Voting Integrity. Obviously I've been working on his campaign, and have worked hard opposing Vote-by Mail and the continued degredation of King County and Washington State's voting systems as well. Joe has had a thourough education on this fundamental issue.
As to your mention of ethical campaigning, Jean's tactics, and those of her campaign manager, and Cathy Allen have really been beyond the pale this time.
So if you want an honest, fiscally conservative council member, who believes in paying for government programs by finding ways to cut pork in the budget. I'd highly recommend Joe Szwaja. However, if you want to empower the likes of Greg Nickels, Cathy Allen, and endorse the kind of negative campaigning conducted by those who work with these two, then Jean Godden is for you.
For those of you still not convinced, I'd recommend The Paper Noose Blog.
There's more than a few highly enlightening posts about Jean Godden's campaign tactics and ethical lapses her campaign, her campaign manager, and her staff have been committing in the past few months.
Posted by: Gentry Lange on November 5, 2007 01:45 PMYour single vote is almost certainly not going to change the outcome of the election. Only in races where there are fewer than 1000 votes cast is there any significant probability of this happening. So your one vote will almost certainly NOT change the outcome. Therefore you can not keep the greater of two evils out of office by voting for the lesser.
So why vote? Here is why:
1) Your vote is an act of free speech. It is your moral stamp of approval on a candidate. When you vote for a candidate, then you stake your name and your reputation on him or her. You will share in some of the responsibiltiy for each of his or her votes if elected.
2) Your vote says you buy in to our constitutional system. It is the only real way you can "sign" the social contract, and commit publicly to the system of government that we have. Anarchists do not vote, for they know that in doing so they put their stamp of approval on the system. Those who want their neighbors to know they support the rule of law will vote. Those who might run for office must have a long voting record.
So, don't vote for the lesser of two evils. It just says you approve of the lesser candidate.
A strong message is sent by leaving a race blank. It says neither of the candidates rose to your level of standards. The reason we have such lousy candidates is that people set low standards for their votes. Lesser of two evils thinking is how we got in to the current sad state of affairs.
Vote FOR something, not against it.
Vote FOR 960 and I-25.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 5, 2007 07:29 PMYou don't vote for the lesser of two evils, you just go for the most of an evil that is why you are for Ron Paul. What do you do after he polls about 2%? Did you mortgage your house for the campaign contribution this time? Hope I don't have to say vote for the crook (Hillary) instead of Paul. Hopefully, the pubbies are smarter than to nominate that loose cannon, Paul.
Posted by: WVH on November 6, 2007 12:03 AMBut sometimes, it will. See the 2004 gubernatorial race, which had about 3 million votes cast.
Sorry, I just don't buy it: there's always a chance your vote will make a difference, if there is a chance that either candidate could win. So fine, in 2004 if you hated Bush but preferred him to Kerry, then don't vote for Bush because he has no chance to win in WA anyway (as I didn't vote for Dole in 1996, in MA). But if he had a chance to win (in your state) ... you can't assume your vote won't make a difference. If that difference matters to you, then you should vote.
I have no problem saying I voted for Bush (even though my vote never "counted" since it was in MA and WA). I disagree with a lot of the things he has done, but I believe we are far better off than we would have been if Kerry or Gore got elected. I didn't support Bush in the primary, but he's the only choice we had against the Dem, so I supported him in the general, gladly. My conscience is clean, and even if I disagreed with the war, that would still be the case.