Just a reminder to vote today for Seattle City Council.
Five seats are being contested and none of the candidates are worth voting for. Still, vote we must. When one is faced with 5 pairs of unappetizing candidates, the driving principle is to select whoever is likely to do the least damage. Since all the candidates on the ballot are silly if not ridiculous, then we generally vote for the silly over the ridiculous. Except if the ridiculous is so ineffectual they aren't likely to accomplish anything. In that case, an inept ridiculous candidate is preferable to a saner competent candidate who may actually make progress on their silly agenda. If both the incumbent and the challenger are equally silly (or equally ridiculous) vote for the challenger.
Also, be sure to vote in favor of the referendum to switch from at-large to district elections. District elections won't guarantee a better council, but at least it will mean that the council will be shaken up in 2005 and the new councilmembers will be more accountable to their voters.
A quick summary of the individual council races:
Position 7: Heidi Wills vs David Della. I'm voting to replace the ridiculous incumbent Heidi Wills with the equally ridiculous David Della. Heidi Wills was behind the council's nutty resolutions to breach the Snake River dams in Eastern Washington and to ban circus animals on city property. Her TV commercials tell us that Heidi's grandmother was a Rosie the Riverter during WWII. That might be enough to inspire me to vote for the grandmother, but not for Heidi. David Della on the other hand is no less ridiculous. Sample position:
[Della] said he does want to revisit a 1998 law giving police the power to impound cars of drivers caught with suspended licenses. Della says the law affects the poor disproportionately.He gets my vote anyway.
Position 3: Peter Steinbrueck vs. Zander Batchelder. I'm voting to replace the silly incumbent council president Peter Steinbrueck with the silly Zander Batchelder. Steinbrueck made an ass of himself when he spoke out inappropriately during last month's school superintendent fiasco and undermined the sitting School Board. Zander Batchelder supports district elections. Steinbrueck is so opposed to districts that he threatened to walk away from the council rather than run in a district race. As my dad might say "is that a threat or a promise?". As we say in the software business: "that's not a bug, it's a feature".
Position 5: Margaret Pageler vs. Tom Rasmussen. I'm voting to keep the silly incumbent Margaret Pageler over the sillier challenger Tom Rasmussen. Pageler is reviled by some on the lunatic left as a kind of fascist conservative, so she must be doing something right. Her campaign website, on the other hand, is full of all sorts of ultraliberal twaddle. Challenger Tom Rasmussen's top priority is helping senior citizens. I'll keep an open mind and maybe I'll vote for Tom in the election of 2035, when I'll be 72 and he is 88.
Position 9: Jim Compton vs. John Manning. I'm voting, with great hesitation, to replace the ridiculous incumbent Jim Compton with his silly challenger John Manning. Compton has gotten himself into two "ethics scandals" this year. In fact, he didn't really do anything wrong, except fail to defend himself properly. On the other hand, he is a staunch supporter of the $500 million South Lake Union biotech boondoggle. John Manning previously served one year on the city council, but had to step down after spending time in jail for domestic violence (by all accounts he has paid his debt to the community, undergone counseling and resolved his personal problems).
Position 1: Judy Nicastro vs. Jean Godden. I'm not voting for either the ultra-ridiculous incumbent Nicastro nor her ultra-ridiculous challenger Godden. My wife and I discussed this one for a long time. Nicastro is not the sharpest pencil in the box, she was a women's studies major who went on to law school but never managed to pass the bar. When she was first elected four years ago, she tried to impose rent control. Jean Godden, on the other hand, is in favor of mandatory recycling and blowing $500 million of the taxpayers' money on the South Lake Union biotech boondoggle. I argued that Godden is just as ridiculous a liberal as Judy Nicastro, but as a more mature person who comes across as more credible and less confrontational, she is more likely to push through her nutty liberal agenda. So as much as I detest Nicastro, I was inclined to vote for her anyway. My wife, who is far more liberal than I am, feels that Nicastro is a nutty egomaniac and doesn't like Godden very much either, but was willing to vote for Godden. When we realized we would split our vote for two candidates we didn't really like, we decided we'd make a stronger statement if we both voted for neither.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 04, 2003 07:00 AM