Toby Nixon's Times op-ed calls on the King County Council to let the voters vote on the I-25 charter change this November. Unfortunately, the Council Democrats are resisting putting it on the ballot. Why? Although King County votes 60%+ Democrat, the Councilmembers must feel certain that the voters aren't with them on this particular issue. Their rejectionism can only be based on three specific assumptions:
* If they let the people vote on the charter change this year, it WILL pass
* A Council-backed candidate CAN'T get elected elections director
* The winning candidate WON'T implement the reckless mail-only voting plan to which the Council is wedded.
And if they're not convinced that letting the voters decide the issue would mean certain defeat, why wouldn't they simply let this go to a vote of the people, and either (a) defeat the charter change on the merits, or (b) if it wins, use their formidable advantage to elect their preferred candidate?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 30, 2007 02:17 PM | Email ThisA sad day indeed...
Posted by: gs on August 30, 2007 03:22 PMSince the presidential primary is in February, the special election date is now moved under RCW 29A.04.330 from the 1st Tuesday to the February 19, 2008 primary date selected by the statutory committee.
Since the Republican Party is allegedly using the primary results to (at least on paper) select 51% of national convention delegates, the turnout of Republican-inclined voters will be much higher than that of Democratic-inclined voters (whose party relies solely on the prior February 9, 2008 precinct caucuses).
But even worse is the lack of a primary. The election for this position would be held in February 2008. Had any other special election date, other than February, been chosen from the six special election dates allowed under RCW 29A.04.330(2) (specified Tuesdays in each of February, March, April, May, August or November), then a primary election would be held to narrow the field to the top two candidates for this nonpartisan office.
But with adoption of the I-25 charter change in November, there is no intervening special election date for a primary before February. So all candidates will be placed on the same ballot, and whoever gets the highest percentage (which could be less than 20% if multiple candidates file), will be elected to this office. Name recognition and the random ballot order drawing would be key factors in this plurality-take-all election.
The same kind of problem happens if the King County Council doesn't adopt the I-25 ordinance. In this case, the voters vote on this ordinance in November 2007. If the I-25 ordinance is approved, the charter amendment is placed on the November 2008 ballot. If that is approved, there is a special election in February 2009, without a primary either, with the same plurality-take-all provisions.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 30, 2007 04:01 PMRemember the governor race in California a few years ago. I think Tiny Tim entered that race, even though he was dead.
Posted by: swatter on August 30, 2007 04:17 PMActually I am sure you have read these reasons, so in this case, you can't be ignorant of them. You must be deliberately misstating their positions in order to try to fool your readers. I see pros and cons to I-25 and have thought about supporting it, but your continual misrepresentation of the issues makes it hard to trust anything you say on the matter.
Posted by: Bruce on August 30, 2007 04:30 PMIn addition, it shows Stefan's total hubris to call I-25 "the will of the voters." There is no logic at all which justifies such a headline.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on August 30, 2007 05:02 PMThe best financed (read: partisan) candidate would win an elections director election...how on earth would that be a good thing for folks wanting fair elections?
The inanity of the concept is at once obvious and demonstrable. I cannot understand why Stefan or others support it....
Posted by: Bill Anderson on August 30, 2007 09:09 PMAre you aware that, prior to 1969, the King County auditor was elected, just as the other 38 counties in Washington do currently?
As a thought experiment, consider whether, on balance, the quality of KC elections was better prior to 1969, or since then.
As a second thought experiment, consider whether the current KC elections system, which produced the abysmal farce that was the 2004 general election, resulting in KC becoming a national laughingstock, should be allowed to continue.
When you have completed these two exercises, I'm sure you will understand why any reasonable person would support making the office of KC auditor an elected one.
Posted by: ewaggin on August 30, 2007 10:26 PMI have no idea whether KC elections were better or worse before 1969. And I would love to learn why King County (and most counties its size) switched to an appointed elections manager. Can you tell us?
I see no evidence that KC is "a national laughingstock" except in the mind of WA Republicans. Do you have any? E.g., an objective statement from a body of elections professionals?
Posted by: Bruce on August 30, 2007 10:50 PM"I have no idea whether KC elections were better or worse before 1969."
Well, Bruce, that was kind of the point of the exercise. If you don't understand the connection between hitting yourself in the head with a hammer and a headache, you're unlikely to understand why stopping is a good idea.
"And I would love to learn why King County (and most counties its size) switched to an appointed elections manager."
That's an objective not without merit, but it's irrelevant to a comparison of the events pre-1969 vs post-1969.
"Can you tell us?"
Yup, but that would defeat the purpose of the exercise. People generally value much more highly that which they earn, compared to that which is handed to them.
"I see no evidence that KC is "a national laughingstock" except in the mind of WA Republicans."
Is it actually possible that you missed every single one of the countless jokes told by Leno, Letterman, various and sundry public figures, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, about KC Elections still finding uncounted votes weeks and months after the 2004 general election?
Oh, wait, my bad, those weren't all jokes.......
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/005153.html
Should Stefan have been forced to initiate action by himself? That was really the job of the election director.
Off-topic, due to the recent fiasco, there have been a number of hit-and-runners posting in the comment section. They, of course, use handles like I do. I don't pay a lot of attention to the hit-and-runners. Bruce has been commenting for years now; his comments are read, digested and either spit out or filed away as a good comment. HeyBruce is a newbie- I can't really digest a newbie's comments till they become a regular and I know they are not a hit-and-runner.
Posted by: swatter on August 31, 2007 06:46 AMYou've got to choose your battles.
On the subject of election chicanery - consider this one that I've been meditating on for the summer - remember the partisan primary ballot legislation of late?
Now, I've no objection to the parties asserting their right to select their own candidates. That's a sign of good management.
However, if one reads the law one will notice that any choosing not to identify, or to cross-over for a candidate or two, will have their vote outlawed.
That strikes me as a DIRECT ASSAULT on the First Ammendment - sure D's, Sure R's go ahead and limit the selection to your own loosely identified party members - but don't interfere with my right to express my preference at any point.
I haven't gone so far as to see who sponsored or voted for this bill, but at best they were all 'Drunk at the Wheel'. You may well be attempting to identify Independents as second class citizens but all you have accomplished is nominating yourselves, and your supporters, as same.
And my meditations have led me to believe that it isn't just an issue of good government - but also of financial management.
One effect of discouraging Independent voters is the removal of the largest group of swing voters on money measures from the primary voting cycle.
Was that intentional? I think you could make the case that it wasn't, under some circumstances, but not the one's we have. Something similiar could be said about Jane Hague at King County.
Instead of Zero Tolerance as justification to beat up pot smokers how about zero tolerance for alcoholic thieving corporate welfare slurping Republicans.
And if your listening, Mr. Ferguson - that means you, your former law firm, AND THEIR CLIENTS.
Which way you gonna go? Are you a lawless spoiled rotten punk or an Adult AMERICAN?
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma
Lately it seems some SP regulars were going after our long-time liberal/libertarians. I just didn't want a newbie to do the same, because I value the comments of the regulars.
Posted by: swatter on August 31, 2007 08:29 AM