Friday, August 09, 2013

With 109 FH candidates, expect skull-duggery: postpone the Freeholder election.

With an entire regiment of leftists signing up for freeholder, it's not too difficult to see that this is a plan.... to attempt to take over the entire process.

And were I a commissioner, I'd put a stop to it.

Here's the thing: the likelihood that there will be a massive democrat withdrawal after sign ups close is there, and getting bigger.

It looks like a plan that's blown apart, to be sure, but the fringe-leftists can't be under estimated.  Races with 10 or more candidates, with unheard of people coming forward who know they have no chance of winning, one  has to question the why of it.

With this many candidates, the only way to have an informed voter is to take the current plan off the board and replace it with a partisan primary and general election.

With the fact that we don't know most of these people and the likelihood of as many as 120 or more candidates for these 15 positions, there is no real way that the average vote has any hope of making an informed choice.

Instead of allowing the process to be manipulated, I suggest that this election be cancelled, and moved to the next election date... February or March. 

Not to do this would make this process completely insane... while the usual process would bring order out of this rampant chaos and likely effort to manipulate the system,

Expect dozens of "candidates" to drop out before Monday, COB.

Just sayin'.


Lew Waters said...

From the get go, I have said this freeholder election needs to be partisan. Voters deserve to know who and what they are voting for.

It has been obvious since Boldt and Tanner lost that the Democrats wanted some way to neutralize the election, or at least the majority on the Commission.

Selecting Benton, regardless of whether good or bad was just the catalyst they were looking for you whip up the lynch mob mentality.

All of the times this effort was brought forward it has been Democrats fighting it, marginalizing it and opposing it.

And now, all of a sudden, it is the second coming?

It's time this was made partisan in nature so voters know what is going on.

Peter V said...

This is Tom's desire to have the Freeholders elected and we have not been able to talk him out of it. I am sure David would vote to pull it back if Tom put the motion forward. There are so many pitfalls at every step in the process. Some that I didn't even know about until recently. This has made for strange alliances. David and Doug Lasher want to keep it like it is. I want a single elected person responsible for the administrative side of the county and it could be a County Executive or the Chair of the Board of Commissioners, i don't care, but I want our positions to remain partisan. Greg and Steve are supporting the Snohomish county model with A County Executive and non-partisan positions. Tom wants a charter similar to what we have now but with initiative included. Many of us are wary of the initiative process because you can only make things more restrictive than State law. It was a huge risk voting for it because the freeholders can decide to have us all stand for re-election after the adoption of the Charter and we would all have to rerun for our positions. If I knew than what I know now, I would have begged Tom to delay until 2015. Your suggestion to pull it back has a lot of merit and David, Anna and I have discussed it many times. At this time, it will take two votes and we don't have them. Therefore, we have to move forward in the process and fight for a government that will best protect the rights of the citizens. We have to elect freeholders that will not allow a charter that will not allow David and Tom to serve out their terms. We must be clear that is a risk we face if we don't get the right freeholders elected. I will oppose any Charter that doesn't allow sitting elected officials to complete their terms in office.

Peter V said...

Article XI Section 5 States. The term of all elective office except for the PA, superintendent of schools and justice of the peace, who are in office at the time of the adoption of the Home Rule Charter shall terminate as provided in the Charter.