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.
Posted by warrenpeterson at February 04, 2009 06:54 PM | Email ThisNice work!
Posted by: Giffy on February 4, 2009 09:22 PMfunny stuff.
Posted by: George Hoover on February 5, 2009 10:05 AMThey 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 PMWhat's your alternative?
Posted by: BA on February 5, 2009 11:29 PMThat 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