February 04, 2009
Voters Choose New Director of Elections

After the election debacles of 2004 and 2006, more than enough people signed Initiative 25 to put the question of electing the King County Director of Elections on the ballot. We were told that would be a major step toward insuring well-run, fair and honest elections. We wanted "Change." So on November 4, 2000 seventy-two percent of registered voters cast fifty-six percent of the vote for King County Charter Amendment 1 - Elected Elections Director.

And what happened? This last Tuesday barely nineteen percent of registered voters selected our first elected Director of Elections from among six candidates. The winner garnered about forty-five percent of the vote, less than a majority but still more than the next three candidates combined.

Who won? Why the very same current Director of Elections appointed in 2007 by King County Executive Ron "Find me some more votes" Sims. Barring a major felony conviction or being recalled for "finding" enough missing ballots to elect a Republican, she will be with us for at least the next three plus years.

The results of this non-partisan, all by mail election were disappointing to say the least. The two candidates with Republican credentials were together ten points behind the winner Sherril Huff. She was the only candidate to mention partisan support in the Voters' Pamphlet - "35 County Auditors, both Republican and Democrat; Executive Ron Sims; County Democrats Chair Susie Sheary ..." - but she also had the strongest statement in the pamphlet. Voters who don't follow Sound Politics Huff posts but rely on the Voters' Pamphlet and the Times and P.I. endorsements could understandably be convinced to vote for her. Nevertheless, she does not represent "change" and Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief.

clearfogblog

Posted by warrenpeterson at February 04, 2009 06:54 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Which again proves a version of the old saying:
Uneducated voters and minimally participatory democracy can lead to bad outcomes......

Posted by: Methow Ken on February 4, 2009 07:58 PM
2. The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid.
- Art Spander

Posted by: diamondshards on February 4, 2009 08:31 PM
3. What exactly did you think would happen? Of course she played up her endorsement by democrats, this is a democratic county. Of course there was a fracturing of the vote since you all will to impatient to put a primary before the first election. Of course there was low turnout since again you all were to impatient to have the election take place at the next general election instead of forcing this wasteful special election.

Nice work!

Posted by: Giffy on February 4, 2009 09:22 PM
4. It's chicago baby!!!!!

Posted by: Andy on February 4, 2009 11:35 PM
5. Of course she won. Who counted these votes anyway? Or am I the only one who sees the irony here?

Posted by: Diogenens on February 5, 2009 09:42 AM
6. Waaaaaah!!!!!!!

funny stuff.

Posted by: George Hoover on February 5, 2009 10:05 AM
7. Huff will be the second coming of Dean Logan. But what is a little dishonesty, mixed with large measure of incompetence, and a dash of fraud?

Posted by: Paddy on February 5, 2009 11:47 AM
8. It is so pathetic to come back to this blog and see the same whining BS, over and over. Incompetence? Did you listen to the debate? If you guys want to win, you should try nominating someone whose IQ exceeds their shoe size by at least 10.

Posted by: MenschWench on February 5, 2009 12:02 PM
9. @8 Don't expect any real analysis from the whining republicans on this blog. They can't figure out why they continually lose elections but they throw up candidates like Irons (a mother-beater and Roach (a psychopath) who can't figure out what the job even entails - and then wonder why they get crushed at the polls.

They do the same thing on a national scale. thjey are 100% behind Bush, until they realize his policies of tax cuts for the rich, the largest deficit in history and unnecessary war in Iarq are unpopular. then they run from their own President during the election and wonder why they were crushed by the largest vote margin in history by a non-incumbent.

They also never figured out that lining up all the lobbyist behind the republican party (as Abramoff and Rove tried to do) was not only illegal but counter-productive.

When republicans like Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed (representing the religious right and the fiscally conservative right) laundered money for their longtime buddy Abramoff, so that he could promote forced abortions in the NMI, forced labor, Indian gambling and Russian oil tycoons - it tells you how much the republican party really stands for the supposed beliefs it continually spouts.

Posted by: correctnotright on February 5, 2009 04:28 PM
10. Wrong, as this board's resident liar, you wouldn't know "real analysis" if it bit you in tyhe ass. Head, I mean.

Posted by: Hinton on February 5, 2009 04:58 PM
11. Wrong, as this board's resident liar, you wouldn't know "real analysis" if it bit you in the ass. Head, I mean.

Posted by: Hinton on February 5, 2009 04:58 PM
12. I've got obvious problems with the use of the word Democracy, but all that aside....what kind of democracy is it when roughly 8% of the population determines who gets to make policy for the rest of us?

Posted by: RedGreener on February 5, 2009 08:07 PM
13. Because the balance of the population chose to give that 8% the responsibility.

What's your alternative?

Posted by: BA on February 5, 2009 11:29 PM
14. When what do my wondering eyes do appear: "what kind of democracy is it when roughly 8% of the population determines who gets to make policy for the rest of us?"

That makes the righties both bad winners and bad losers. They carp about a win they didn't back for an office they successfully forced onto the ballot.

Posted by: catlbob on February 6, 2009 06:05 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?