Seattle voters turned against the proposed monorail on primary election night, Tuesday, Sept. 20...,
So writes George Howland. But did the voters really turn against the monorail? I suppose that if George (who is frank in his dislike for the monorail) wants badly-enough to get a certain result, he can use any set of numbers to persuade himself. (Or no numbers at all, since he knows where he wants to end up.)
But here are the official results as of this morning:
These votes prove nothing about decline in support for the monorail if you aggregate the pros -- which is the only realistic way to do it -- and contrary to George's suggestion.
But do the arithmetic yourself and see if you are convinced.
Position 8: The two pro-monorail candidates Laws (31%) and Lippmann (19%) receive 50% and outpoll Goldberg (47%).
Position 9: The two pro-monorail candidates Falkenbury (24%) and Stockmeyer (34%) receive 58% and demolish Nobles (40%),
Such results are totally inline with past elections. Clearly -- and this is no secret -- Seattle is very divided about the monorail. And clearly the financing plan -- which the SMP Board rejected immediately upon the staff's presenting it -- was a bad one and people are concerned and for good reason. I am concerb=ned and I am a pretty-firm supporter -- but that doesn't mean I have left my objectivity at the door nor that I am ready to play chicken-little and agree that the monorail cannot be built.
One could reasonably argue in fact that these election results are in fact an endorsement for the monorail...so much support in the face of admittedly weak SMP management etc etc. (I won't mention Ms. Laws' verbal stupidity at a recent public meeting which surely eroded her support.)
Letting one's own preferences interfere so obviously with fair-handed analysis makes one into little more than a shifty shill.
You say in the last line of your post that "Letting one's own preferences interfere so obviously with fair-handed analysis makes one into little more than a shifty shill." I think you expose a few of your own prejudices towards the monorail in your interpretation, just as George Howland does.
Let's look at the Goldberg-Laws-Lippmann race. For you to summarily lump Stan Lippmann in as a monorail supporter is doubtful at best. This is perennial candidate Stan Lippmann, who began his political career fighting against the rubella vaccine. Now he has restyled himself as the mag-lev guy. Cindi is wounded by her unfortunate comments regarding Jewish opposition to the monorail. So, at best, one can draw the conclusion that public opinion has slipped regarding the monorail given Goldberg's strong showing with no name recognition, money, or experience.
In the Stockmeyer-Nobles-Falkenbury race the results are mixed as well. Opponents of the monorail who are progressives know Jim Nobles is somewhat of a right-wing wing nut who appears on Sound Politics. So many might have voted for Falkenbury because he is no nonsense as opposed to Cleve's rather slick lawyering of every issue.
I believe there are two rational conclusions one can draw from the primary monorail votes.
1) Support for the monorail is still strong among at least 40% of the populace, but there has been significant erosion since the financing plan debacle. Those, including yourself, who don't admit that unless serious surgery is done and soon, will see the inexperiened SMP disbanded by the legislature or City Council. They have little time because they gave themselves little time. This project has always been rush rush and now it is haunting them.
2) The clearest conclusion one can logically draw is that although the monorail itself still has strong support, the board does not. I believe most voters think that the board fundamentally failed to exercise control and oversight over the staff. The too cozy relationship between Weeks and Horn was simply accepted by the board including electeds Cleve and Cindi. There are few compelling reasons to reelect officials who didn't ask questions until far too late.
Posted by: bfree2think | Sep 21, 2005 at 10:05 PM
Well said, and you sort of expect this from Seattle Weekly, but it's sad to see the Seattle Times doing exactly the same thing.
Anyone who's interested in getting on the pro side of this fight, check out 2045 Seattle
Posted by: Christian Gloddy | Sep 21, 2005 at 10:09 PM
Don't forget that whopping 27% turnout for what was a Primary Election. A conditional majority from less than a third of the voting population supporting candidates that happened to oppose the monorail isn't what I'd call a mandate.
Posted by: Gomez | Sep 23, 2005 at 09:05 PM
You don't show up to vote, you don't count...in every sense.
Posted by: David Sucher | Sep 23, 2005 at 09:07 PM