The election is finally over and I can’t think of one person who isn’t happy that the campaigning has stopped. The media people are probably a little disappointed since the money spent during the election season is like a retailer’s version of Christmas shopping seasons. The amount of money spent was incredible. Do you think there is a day after a political campaign where you can “take it back for a refund” if it didn’t turn out the way you wanted? Wouldn’t that be interesting? Losers get a refund.
When you think about it, in the political world, the winner gets the refund. If everyone does what they are supposed to do, the dollars invested in a political campaign will produce a return on investment.
Keep in mind that I am not talking about the voters; I am talking about the campaign contributors. If you look at the Public Disclosure Commission reports you can decide for yourself which people are expecting a return on their investment. It is disappointing and alarming looking at some of them.
I don’t want to diminish the importance of the voters in all of this since you need them to complete the process, but there is so much going on in the campaign strategy rooms aimed at shaping voter thought processes. Psychologically manipulating the way we think of the candidates leads us to choices that fit a particular profile. Voters do have to “pull the lever” to make their choice after the marketing blitz but they are often led very carefully to that choice.
As a business person, it’s interesting listening to the strategy meetings in a political campaign. You apply the same principles to selling cars or tooth paste as you do to politics. The marketing people don’t care what the product is.
Think about the candidates you voted for. Do you have specific expectations for them when they are sworn in or do you trust that the marketing spin somehow meets your needs? Partisan politics is a process of negotiations where voters are not in a position of power.
Don’t be surprised if there is no connection between the campaign promises and the votes they cast after the first of the year. The reality is that the real campaign promises were made behind closed doors and you can bet those promises will be honored. They probably won’t be yours.
Voters don’t really have the stomach for the hard work it takes to keep elected officials feet to the fire. They just want someone else to do it. Partisan politicians count on that.
Don’t be surprised if we get what someone else paid for.
No Loss for Words 
Non-Partisan suits me just fine!
by Steve DanaIt is not often that I can point to King County when I am talking about something good. We just don’t seem to agree on too much. There is now something positive to report. Preliminary vote results on the amendments to the King County Charter are encouraging. I think most of them will be good changes. A couple of the amendments leave something to be desired.
On one measure they wanted to give the county council the authority to upgrade the qualifications requirement for candidates for office. I didn’t care too much for that one, but could live with it.
On another measure, they wanted to increase the number of signatures required for a citizen initiative to amend the county charter. The current language in the King County Charter is fairly consistent with other charter counties so doubling the requirement smacks of a pre-emptive move on “Tim Eyeman types” even though no one has expressed an interest in messing with the charter so far.
Citizens need to know they can directly participate in the government process if need be. Doubling the number of signatures needed to qualify a proposal freezes out 99% of possible proponents. There has not been an abuse of the existing regulation in the past. Why the change now?
What I was most impressed about in the charter amendments was the switch to Non-partisan elections for county officials. King County is one of the most liberal and highest populated counties in the country and they are supporting this change. That was a big one for me.
If you typically identify with a political party, how does the ‘party platform’ apply to county government services? What function of county government is better served by a political party?
I remember a number of years ago when both parties tested candidates on their stand regarding the issue of “Pro-Choice” verses “Pro-Life” regardless of the office they sought.
If you are a Catholic, you are pretty much “Pro-Life”. Wouldn’t that make you a Republican? If you make your living at Boeing making airplanes in the union, aren’t you likely to be a Democrat?
But if you are a Catholic that works as a union airplane builder don’t you have to struggle with which party represents your views?
I tend to have more liberal social views and conservative fiscal views. I am just the opposite of that “pro-Life” union worker. I am a “pro-Choice” business person.
I am a strong advocate for a person’s right to make personal decisions for themselves without government interfering. Does that make me a Democrat?
I am a business owner that struggles every day to meet the demands of an ever increasing regulatory and tax burden. I want government to have less impact on my life. Does that make me a Republican?
In county government, the personal preferences of the elected officials with regard to “a woman’s right to choose” don’t concern me. It is not an issue county government ever deals with.
City and County governments provide services to citizens. They are the worker bee government entities that work with citizens to solve problems at the basic levels. Political parties don’t spend too much time working on the nuts and bolts of delivering police services or potable water.
These days, the environment has become the “battlefield” issue more than anything else. I tend to want scientific analysis to guide me through the process of regulating human activity in the environment. Some environmental extremists would rather scare us with unsubstantiated claims so we err on the side of caution. I want to see the science to make a balanced decision. Does one political party represent the fair application of science?
Here is the real dilemma, if a person is a Democrat or Republican are they “for or against” the environment? Farmers tend to be Republicans, are they for the environment or against it? Commercial fishermen tend to be Republicans, are they for the environment or against it? Rural residents tend to be Republicans, are they for or against the environment?
These are difficult enough non-partisan issues. I don’t think we need political parties mucking up the process. If we rely on the science, we can defend our decisions. If we stay with partisanship, it often comes down to muddying the waters to keep us confused about the real agenda.
Choosing county elected officials on a non-partisan basis really appeals to me. We are more likely to get down to the real ideas and solutions if there is not a partisan label attached to it from the onset.
I think that if I decide to seek elective office again, I will be “non-partisan”. It worked for me in Snohomish. I am comfortable with (NP). It suits me just fine.
Posted in Political commentary, Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Political Commentary | 1 Comment »