I followed Jordan’s advice and read the voter guides put up by local media. They are all horseshit, my pardon to Doug.
Why does The Stranger support Mike O’Brien? Because he opposes the downtown tunnel and the “lying bureaucrats running it”. Why does the the Seattle Times oppose him? Because he does “lefty” things like take a kayak out to the Shell drilling platform to oppose it. Doug mentions a few policy issues, but fails to draw any contrasts with the other candidates, so for all we know all the district 6 candidates are taking the same positions.
No publications dealt with the issues local to district 6 or district 4. The endorsements were basically rants about ideological viewpoints. District elections are supposed to be offering us the opportunity to vote locally and think locally. They are supposed to offer us the opportunity to discuss local issues and have a local advocate. Who has the best solution to the Northlake Way homeless encampments? Who favors cycle tracks on Green Lake Way? Who favors the U-District upzone? What priorities do the candidates have?
So please don’t vote for candidates based on the voter guides. It’s a lazy, stupid way to vote that eliminates candidates who aren’t willing to fully back a simplistic ideology. If you can’t be bothered to actually listen to what the candidates have to say, then don’t vote at all. To hear from the candidates themselves follow these links:
- Live South of 50th? Here are the district 4 candidate priorities for Wallingford. Here is what they think of the Move Seattle Levy and East / West throughput in Wallingford. Here is their proposal for Northlake Way Homeless Encampments. Here is what they think about low income supports and housing affordability. Here is what they think about neighborhood planning. Here is a video guide to district 4. Here are voter’s guide statements from:
- Live North of 50th? Here are district 6 candidate priorities for Tangletown. Here is their stance on housing affordability. Here is what they think about cycle tracks on Green Lake Way and 50th. Here is their opinion on neighborhood planning. Here is a video guide to district 6. Voter’s guide statements from:
Can’t be bothered? Don’t see an issue distinguishing the candidates that you care about? Then please don’t vote.
You set a high bar for suffrage. I think it’s entirely reasonable to pick someone who’s general perspective you share, let them do the hard work of digging into the details, do some basic vetting and vote with them. You are responsible for vetting that person, but not every single candidate on the ticket. It allows your opinion to be expressed electorally in a more efficient way.
This is bloc voting, but on a smaller, more nimble scale. It’s essentially how our representative democracy works, in broad strokes: I don’t vote on every bill in Congress, I indicate the person who is empowered to direct my vote.
I vote for DOUG as my voting representative.
You assume Doug has done the hard work, but that’s really not the case, and I think Doug will admit as much. For instance, Doug is straight forward that he knows Michael so that’s why he supports him. You know Doug who knows Michael, so you support him. Pretty thin ice to stand on, but better than echoing The Stranger or The Times at least.
I’d be tempted to agree with Eric – don’t vote. I’d pick DOUG if I had to choose, but I don’t have to – I can think about it myself. DOUG would probably be OK with people just voting his picks without further thought, but ideally it’s more of a supplement – not heavy on facts and details, as Eric points out, but for me, I hadn’t really considered Roderick seriously for some reason, and DOUG’s endorsement broke through that. “Representative democracy in broad strokes” is industrial-strength rationalization.
I don’t have a really satisfactory feel for what these candidates really represent. The wallyhood interview series didn’t shed a super bright light on that – vague answers to narrow questions. Voter’s guide statements tend to be puffery. I’m voting half blind, and I hate it, but I don’t have any reason to believe that DOUG is way ahead of me. I mean, maybe he is, but no evidence was provided.
Ugh. I wanted to stay silent on this thread, but you couldn’t be more wrong, Eric. I spend countless hours working on my voter’s guide every election cycle. Doubt me? Ask my wife.
I don’t spend time picking apart each candidate on my guide, because I try to distill each race into 250 words or less. But that does not mean I haven’t done my research. I read the King County Voter’s Pamphlet. I listen to and watch recorded candidate statements. I attend debates and forums in person and listen to interviews KUOW. And I scour candidate websites to see where they stand on issues that matter to me.
I absolutely do not support Michael Maddux simply because I know him. I know Jean Godden too and think she’s a terrible candidate. Michael is the best candidate for District 4 for exactly the reasons I mention in my voter’s guide. Abel Pacheco is too closely tied to SPD, Rob Johnson is a Big Developer’s dream, and Tony Provine hates bike lanes. I know these things because I’ve done my research.
Doug- The main thing I think you’re missing is candidate interviews where you could confront candidates on the issues you’re judging them on. I miss the days of the Seattle PI, which did interview everyone and had non-ideological endorsements.
For instance, you say “Tony Provine hates bike lanes”, but my understanding is that he’s in favor of integrated transportation planning and neighborhood control and thought the bike lane on 65th would work better as a parallel greenway. So he doesn’t think every bike lane is a good idea, does that disqualify him? I was speaking to Provine’s campaign manager and she said she would have worked for Maddux if Provine wasn’t in the race; they’re very similar politically, but her perception was that Provine was more knowledgeable and ready for the job. I would love it if you confronted Provine on bike lanes in general or specific and got his point of view.
Anyhow, sorry to be critic. Your writing is great and entertaining and you raise lots of good points, but I wouldn’t recommend anybody parrot your guide while voting.
You’re right, Provine does think a bike lane “parallel” to 65th would work better. Then problem is, he’s wrong. It’s not parallel–it serpentines through the neighborhood. And it’s not better–it’s not a direct connection, so cyclists will still take 65th (which is their right). Provine’s bike lane is bad transportation policy.
Provine also opposes a protected bike lane on Roosevelt (THE major southbound bike round through District 4).
So he’s had two opportunities to support lanes that benefit bike commuters (and there are A LOT of those in District 4) and he’s opposed both of them. At best, he doesn’t understand bike corridors, at worst, he hates bike lanes.
A friend has a business on Roosevelt. I guess by the way we’re sorting it out here, he hates bike lanes. I think the way he’d put it, he is acutely conscious of the trade-offs, in what should be a hopping retail/etc. street front scene thanks to the urban village, etc. Suit yourself, he could probably go with “hates bike lanes” if that’s how you want it.
What kind of business? Numerous studies have shown that bike lanes are good for retail. Here’s one specific to Seattle.
Medical, as I was saying. (Dang forum software.)
I’m not sure what you mean by “medical”, but cycling promotes good health.
I’ll see him tomorrow and will tell him about that, no doubt put the thing in a whole new light.
Abel Pacheco: “I grew up in a biracial home that struggled to make ends meet…”
Rob Johnson: “I was raised by a single mom—a former teacher…”
Michael Maddux: “As a gay middle-class renter with a daughter in Seattle Public Schools, experience this increasing unaffordability…. ”
I was a little disappointed that Provine and Godden didn’t come up with their own tales of woe in their first paragraphs–or anywhere else. I suppose Godden’s “My generation isn’t done yet.” and claims to be the “institutional memory” are a way of saying “I’m old, dammit!” Only Provine left the lame identity politics out of it. I suspect he has had challenges in his life somewhere along the line, but he knows it is neither here nor there.
I voted for Maddux because Frank Chopp supports him (I suspect Doug would not approve…). But it did feel like a Portlandia moment. Make Provine could say he is organic and free range!
But Tony has his dog on his mailer. And he says he really likes animals. It’s not a tale of woe, but it humanizes him. And it’s funny too.
I guess that’s not the same mailer as the bulldozer. 🙂
It is. He likes to cover the bases.
Medical.
(But that was for another thread, sorry!)
One advantage of district elections is that the candidates are responsible to fewer people. If you have a very specific question, you can contact each candidate and ask. Getting a reply/not getting a reply will be telling, plus you’ll have some answers.
If there are specific questions I can answer – please email me! Or check out the blog and campaign site. While the email volume is pretty heavy right now – I should be able to get back to you before August 4th.
Voting for a candidate based on a cherry-picked list of allegedly local issues is rather dumb. It still takes five votes on the Council to pass anything. You can have the perfect candidate on your local issues and if they can’t get squat out of committee, you’ve got nothing. You want someone who can garner four more votes for what you want, That takes intelligence and political skill. So voting solely based on positions is a waste of resources.
Progressive candidates and Grey Areas:
Why is this election all about single issues such as developers and landlords being evil incarnate, or bike lanes being good/bad? To label a Candidate “a developers dream” as a negative, doesn’t do the issue or the candidates full stances on multiple causes justice, and is basically resorting to name calling. Same with “Hates bike lanes”. Decisions based on these single hot button issues are basically stereotyping, which is so 20th Century and out of place in our Progressive city.
I don’t hate all developers, AND also don’t love all bike lanes. On the one hand, Developers increase supply of housing, which we sorely need. On the other hand, development of Stone Way for example needs to be regulated to improve our entire community.
I’d rather vote for candidates who show they can work WITH both sides of an issue (developers and rent control activists for example) instead of for someone who creates an adversarial situation where they are 100% in once camp or the other, without any grey area.
These issues are too complex to chose candidates who are 100% for or against any specific policy, because no solution is 100% correct for everyone. Choosing candidates who allow some grey area for discussion would be truly progressive.
“so 20th century” -love it.
i agree. in fact, i requested a question be included in the recent “wonkathons” regarding how the candidates plan to work with other council members to avoid district insularity. oddly, it did not make the cut, in favor of more divisive and hyper-local questions like bike lanes around green lake.
even with district elections, it is so important to have representatives who work toward a cohesive, positive, and sustainably livable city for everyone, not just our little pet micro-issues. a council with seven myopic people would be disastrous. likely, we would see big money (read:developers) walk all over us while the council spins its wheels accomplishing nothing. we have a good example of this in our federal congress.
(i’ve already voted, but right about now i would vote for whoever promises to get these damn warplanes out of our skies permanently.)
There are for sure some pitfalls to issue-oriented voting. Any clown can come up with some issues that push voters’ buttons., and the advocacy institutions that have sprung up around some issues can make it hard for a council member who thinks for himself or herself.
But it’s the chance we get to influence what happens on these issues. We get to vote down stupid stuff like the Alaskan Way tunnel, baseball stadium, … and sometimes we even get listened to. If we fail to make a point of it, the big money behind some of these things carries the day without opposition.
Sadly, some of the incumbent council members are going to take a beating that’s really for the mayor, and for that matter his predecessors who didn’t do any better to clean up the DPD.