My Positions for 2009
by Chris Van Vechten
The following are my public positions on the issues and individuals who will appear on the 2009 ballot.
I VOTE NO
Unless Tim Eyman himself agrees to come on the show between now and November 3rd to explain how we can afford this and how state government can hope to provide for the general education of our K-college students with these restrictions, I have no intention of giving it my support.
I VOTE YES
I believe this will be the second time I will have the opportunity to personally cast my vote in the name of equality. Referendum 71 does not overturn DOMA (sadly) nor does it legalize gay marriage in Washington State. What it does do, however, is expand existing domestic partnership benefits, responsibilities and legal protections to committed LGBT couples. Critics argue that this is one more step towards gay marriage. They are on the wrong side of history and morality and I don’t think any further discussion needs to be made.
Pierce County Charter Amendment #1
I VOTE NO
Amendment 1 would move the election of the county executive and council to odd-numbered years by 2015 and increase term limits for those offices from two consecutive four-year terms to three consecutive four-year terms.
While I am a fan of term limits, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I feel that limits should universally be restricted to two terms. Is it really unreasonable to suggest capping service on the county council at 12 years? Hell, if it were somehow possible to stick a defibrillator up FDR’s ass and run him for a fifth term, the man could certainly count on getting my vote.
On the other hand, I don’t like the suggestion of moving county executive and council positions to odd numbered years. History demonstrate that this would severely deplete turnout, thereby diluting the democratic process.
It’s too bad the amendment was pieced together this way.
Pierce County Charter Amendment # 2
I VOTE NO
# 2 would move the election of auditor, assessor-treasurer and sheriff to odd-numbered years by 2015. Again, this would automatically reduce turnout and dilute the electoral process.
Pierce County Charter Amendment #3
UNDECIDED
# 3 would eliminate ranked choice voting and restore the primary and general election system for all county elected offices.
For the record, I am opposed to ranked choice voting. I opposed it the last time it was on the ballot and have publicly explained why in previous articles for The Melon. I believe in the concept of a two-party system and honestly feel we should give it a try someday. But until then, what is currently in place is – if nothing else – a powerful check on radicalism. RCV is the first in many steps toward a multiparty system which can only strengthen the cause of radical minorities at the expect of the national majority (Like in the state of Israel, where radical Jewish Fundamentalist parties who represent an estimated 2% of the general electorate have nonetheless successfully used the coalition process to block peace efforts for more than a decade now).
That being said, some of the arguments which leaders of the pro-#3 movement have made are nonetheless highly offensive to me. Anyone who suggests that RCV is “too complicated” for the “average voter” to understand automatically loses my support. The fact that there was a significant number of under votes in the previous election is not evidence of voter ignorance, but rather objection to RCV. Many voters simply refused to designate a “second” or “third” choice on their ballot as a protest to the system. Only 20% of eligible voters turned out for my race. Does that mean that top-two primaries are too complicated or frustrating for 80% of the electorate to understand?
There are legitimate arguments against RCV: it’s expensive, slow, and it was sold to the voters of Pierce County in 2007 with somewhat deceptive rhetoric.
But I will not take a position on this amendment until arguments from both sides are fully revealed. Thus far, only the NO on Amendment 3 camp has caught my attention with it web presence.
October 5th, 2009 at 10:45 am
If you want to reach Tim Eyman you shouldn’t have too much trouble. He makes himself available and posts constantly on the Seattle Times. Perhaps in all fairness you should get Governor Gregoire on your show and have her explain how we can continue to increase the provision and cost of services in our state at a time when tax revenues are falling.
Reply
Chris Van Vechten Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
But he’s yet to set a time to come on.
Reply
October 5th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Howdy Chris.
Something I’ve been barking about is the switcheroo of the traditional No/Yes vote to the current Reject/Approve vote. Of all the Charter Amendments put before the people (these 1, 2 and 3 are actually amendments 37, 38 & 39), never before have they been given a Reject/Approve option.
Additionally, the first 27 proposed amendments were all put forth by the Charter Review Commissions, and never, until after the Charter Commission of 2006, have ANY amendments been proposed by the county council. In the past three years, the Council has proposed 12 amendments (8 in 2007, 1 in 2008, and these 3 now), when instead they should have called the Charter Review Commission back into service–or perhaps called for a new commission to be elected.
Alex Hayes from the pro-side claims that most of the 12 amendments put forth by the Council were necessary due to “the illegalities of RCV”. I would appreciate your take on his claim. Perhaps you’ll see it otherwise, as I do.
Respectfully,
Stacy Emerson
Reply
Chris Van Vechten Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Boy, I really don’t know enough about all the aforementioned to have an opinion. I can only speak to the idea behind the amendments, not the way they were laid out.
Reply
October 5th, 2009 at 11:43 am
2007:
(Voter’s pamphlet – http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/Elections/Archives/gen07/ed4.pdf)
Proposed Amendment No. 1 – SHERIFF – NONPARTISAN / TERM LIMITS
Proposed Amendment No. 2 – ASSESSOR-TREASURER – NONPARTISAN / TERM LIMITS
Proposed Amendment No. 3 – AUDITOR – NONPARTISAN / TERM LIMITS
Proposed Amendment No. 4 – INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING DELAYED / IMPLEMENTATION AND PROCESS
Proposed Amendment No. 5 – INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING RANKING THREE CANDIDATES AND CANDIDATE ELIMINATION
Proposed Amendment No. 6 – INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING RANKING CANDIDATES AND CANDIDATE ELIMINATION
Proposed Amendment No. 7 = MINOR PARTY AND INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE FILING REQUIREMENTS
2008:
(voter’s pamphlet – http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/Elections/Archives/gen08/vpweb.pdf)
Pierce County Charter Amendment
Appointment and Confirmation of Members to Boards and Commissions
2009:
(voter’s pamphlet – http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/Elections/Archives/gen09/vped2web.pdf)
Pierce County – Proposed Charter Amendment No. 1
Submitted by Pierce County
Move Election of and Increase Term Limits for Councilmembers and Executive
Pierce County – Proposed Charter Amendment No. 2
Submitted by Pierce County
Move Election of Auditor, Assessor-Treasurer and Sheriff to Odd-Numbered Years
Pierce County – Proposed Charter Amendment No. 3
Submitted by Pierce County
Eliminate Instant Runoff Voting
Reply
Stacy Emerson Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Ooops, I missed one from 2007:
Proposed Amendment No. 8
FILING FEES FOR REFERENDUM FILING
Reply
October 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Chris,
Ranked choice voting is a far cry from what the use in Israel. Israel uses an extreme form of proportional representation where there is a very low threshold for getting a seat in the legislature. The majority of democracies around the world do use proportional representation, but they generally have a threshold for the number of seats (typically around 5-10% of the vote for a party to get a seat). This prevents the type of mess you describe in Israel.
As for ranked choice voting, it requires the winner to have a majority of the vote. By definition, forcing a candidate to have a majority of the vote means that there is no possible way that candidate could be a radical minority. Where it is used nationally, in Ireland and Australia, they have a two party system.
Reply
Chris Van Vechten Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Erik,
“majority” is defined as 50% + 1.
RCV requires only that one candidate get more first and second choice votes than the other 2, 3, or 32 opponents. This allows radicals the opportunity they need to win big – particularly the well organized Christian Right.
Reply
Erik Connell Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Actually, RCV does require that the winner get 50% + 1. Its the whole point of the system. Radicals may have more opportunity to have their voices heard under RCV (which is the point of democracy, to listen do all voices before making a decision), but they are less likely to win under it. The fact that the RCV winner receives a majority of the vote means that there are no spoilers out there causing the less popular candidate to win unfairly.
Reply
Chris Van Vechten Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Explain how Dale Washam won in 2008 despite losing for two decades prior?
Reply
Erik Connell Reply:
October 7th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Check out the results on the Auditor’s website: http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/archives/gen08/results.htm
Washam got the most votes, even before RCV kicked in. He had 25% of the vote. The closest competitor was Terry Lee with 19% of the vote. Now check out the RCV results: http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/aud/Elections/RCV/ranked/assess/summary.pdf
When Lee was eliminated, he had 31% of the vote, while Washam had 36%, meaning more people preferred Washam to Lee. Washam would have won in a top two race between the two.
To answer your original question of why did Washam win, there were two main factors: (1) The Assessor-Treasurer race was changed to non-partisan. There is no way the Democrats or Republicans would have let him use their labels, and there is no way he would have won without one of those labels. (2) He was listed first on the ballot. This has historically shown to make a difference, especially in races people don’t really care about (i.e. the Assessor-Treasurer’s race).
Reply
Electric Elliot Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Chris, lots of candidates lose their first couple races. Name recognition can pull a lot of sway. As a history genius and former candidate yourself you know that.
Reply
Chris Van Vechten Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Elliot,
Dale was running against
1)Terry Lee (current County Council Member)
2) Jan Shabro (former County Council member and State Representative – current County Auditor)
3) Bev whatsherface (the former County Treasurer)
4) Barbara Gelman (A current County Council Member)
Dale probably had the LEAST name recognition in the race.
Reply
October 6th, 2009 at 5:29 am
Chris, I think your idea that it gives opportunity to radicals is untrue. If you are a candidate with a polarizing position you aren’t going to win under RCV. You would need to appeal to the majority of voters.
If your platform/ideas are to radical, how the heck are you going to garner that majority of the vote?
I can see modifying RCV into something where an actual majority is needed to win, but as it is if you don’t choose a second or third candidate… THAT was your choice/vote. You voted to leave it to the rest of the voters, same as if you stayed home.
In the top two system, a majority view represented by multiple candidates can split the vote to where only more radical minority candidates with a small hardcore constituency makes it to the general election.
What the anti RCV lawyer stated at the Tacoma Library forum was that if you don’t align with either of the two major parties, your vote should be discarded as quickly as possible.
So people like me that are socially liberal and fiscally conservative shouldn’t be allowed to vote for a candidate that represents our views in a general election?
I want small government not controlled by large corporations. It should be working for the voters, solving the common problems, pooling resources where needed to help solve those problems. Not trying to control or penalize me for who I sleep with, who I marry, what I watch or read, what I ingest, what I think, what god I do or don’t believe in.
I want a fiscally sound government that isn’t always putting projects on a 20 year bond rather than saving up the money and then building something. One that isn’t in debt up to it’s ears yet is giving away our money to the entities that cause the problems and break the rules. One that actually follows the constitution and those amendments in the bill of rights rather than eroding those rights further due to ’security’ concerns.
Radical idea… a government that works for the common good. Better keep my vote from counting.
Reply
Chris Van Vechten Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
In 2008, if RCV had been in place on a national level, Mike Huckabee would probably be our president today. He had enough first choice votes in the early primaries to pull ahead of both Romney and McCain, and – after John McCain, he was the most appealing GOP candidate for Democratic Voters.
Tocqueville himself identified the genius of Democracy in America as being rooted in a two party system that made it almost impossible for radicalism to take power. No matter what issue temporarily dominates the voters’ conscious, cooler heads are bound to prevail because of the necessity of compromise that a two party system protects. The only time radicalism ever took root in this country was when Lincoln was elected in a 4-way race (getting less than 40% of the vote in the process). Suddenly no one was compromising with anyone and we had a Civil War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_election_of_1860
America is not Denmark. We’ve got hundred million armed citizens who take medication for every social disorder from ADHD to depression to restless foot syndrome. We could not survive in a multiparty system. We would be as dysfunctional as Israel.
When your in a primary, your often encouraged to run to the extreme. You wanna be more pro labor, pro gay-rights, anti abortion, anti-taxes then your party opponents. Afterwards, you are encouraged to run to the center for the general election. It sucks to watch, but its what happens.
In RCV, you can only run to the extreme or the center. If you’re smart, you’ll run to garner the support of special interest group like the Christian Right, make them your base, pull ahead of your GOP opponents, and then count on their second and third place votes.
You guys do have some good points though. I wanna hear what Novoselic has to say.
Reply
October 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I wish we could travel back in time and implement RCV on a national level, that way people could vote for Ralph Nader and when he doesn’t win have their vote automatically count for Al Gore. That way BUSH II would never have been elected president and the world wouldn’t be in the shit house right now.
DAMN YOU NADER!!
Reply
October 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Julie Anderson independent??? Give me a break… she was a political strategist of Planned Parenthood Votes! What a noble cause. I’ll stick with Shabro.
Reply