Comments on: Loose Lips Daily

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:41:27 +0000

All persons who cast an Absentee or Provisional ballot should now verify that the DC Board of Elections and Ethics counted their votes in this historic election.

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:14:36 +0000

In a ranked system, I would probably have put Schwartz above Michael Brown, but in our current system voting for candidates who have no chance of winning tends to lead to the worse of two evils. Yes, I expect Brown to be terrible, but those are the choices we have.

A Norquista is not going to get my vote unless he's running against a Nazi or something, regardless of how successful he's been in convincing people that he's magically undergone a complete transformation since the Republican primary.

As I've said before, this at-large race made me sick. I expect its results will continue to do so.

By: Jack S.

Jack S. — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:09:28 +0000

In a world (largely) without second-choice polls, we're unfortunately left speculating. Do those happen in advance of Council elections?

By: Reid

Reid — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:01:48 +0000

Michael Brown is far, far more regressive than Mara. His policies are better suited for 1950's Levittown. You're partisan, and that's fine, but to say signing Norquist's pledge is worse than having absolutely the wrong views on urban planning is just short-sighted. The reason is that supply-side economics is nowhere near the official policy of the Council, and Mara's vote wouldn't make it so. However, the suburbanization of DC does have strong backing on the Council, and Brown's regressive views will matter. But whoopee for the DCDL, one less Republican in office. I hope that makes it better for you once Brown starts fighting smart ideas like performance parking or transit-oriented development.

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:09:53 +0000

Hey, I'm not saying the council was better then, just that I don't think Democrats turned independents are anything new or the real cause of our problems. Michael Brown would've been pretty far down my rankings if we had a better system, though he'd still have been above the Norquist follower Mara.

By: Reid

Reid — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:27:56 +0000

Ah, yes. The Council's Halcyon Days of 1989 to 1997...

But I do agree that the article makes some unjustified assumptions. There's the one you pointed out. Then there's the assumption that voters didn't vote for both of them (as I did).

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:15:08 +0000

I agree, Reid. But as I wrote to the author I know, Jack Santucci, I do have a couple of quibbles. First, I seriously doubt that all of Schwartz's vote would have gone to Mara if she hadn't been running. She was much more popular among non-Republicans than he would have been.

Second, there's nothing new about a Republican-free council. We had one from 1989 to 1997, when Bill Lightfoot had that seat as a Democrat turned independent just like Michael Brown. Since we still have Republican-turned-independent David Catania, the council is no more single-party than it was then, when the other non-Democratic at-large member was Hilda Mason of the Statehood Party.

You can see a table I created of the council members from the beginning here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Council_of_the_District_of_Columbia#Table

By: Reid

Reid — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:52:14 +0000

Wow, that proportional representation article read my mind.

The biggest step DC could take for electoral reform would be to eliminate primaries. They do nothing but outsize the voice of the dedicated few. To maximize democratic participation, we ought to hold all elections on election day. Ranked voting would eliminate the need for primaries, while at the same time produce results more reflective of the whole electorate's actual preferences.