Anyway, someone asked if I'd heard about a write-in campaign and I immediately assumed this was an effort brought on by the same folks who sponsored the loony theory that James Shanley and Donna Holaday both announced their runs for may to clear the field of opponents for one or the other.
But then I ran into Jim Stiles at the Farmer's Market on Sunday. [Note; We bloggers like to show how we support local efforts by name dropping.] Jim told me about a letter he'd submitted to the Daily News proposing an unconventional write in campaign. It was published this morning.
Jim says he hasn't decide who will get his support for mayor yet, but he offers this interesting notion:
However, I do plan to write in the names of James Shanley and Donna Holaday — the two mayoral candidates — for positions as at-large city councilors. I am very pleased that these two excellent people are running for mayor and expect to be pleased regardless of who wins that race. However, I find the thought of losing either of them from city government an unpleasant one. They are both first-rate city councilors.
Fortunately, my research (with a great deal of help from others) makes it clear that I can vote for anyone I want to for any position I choose, including voting for one person for more than one position. Presumably either Donna or James will garner the votes necessary, and regardless of what happens with write-in votes, will become mayor. However, if we are very fortunate, the candidate who loses that race will get enough votes to win an at-large City Council seat.
In short, Jim is suggesting that folks write-in the names of Shanley, Holaday or both as City Councilors-at-large. So the one who isn't elected mayor still gets a council seat.
I'm not sure how the mayoral candidates feel. As Jim noted, they really can't talk about it since you can only campaign for one office at a time. I"m not sure they'd be too happy with the whole idea as it introduces yet another variable into an unpredictible process. No doubt, they just want to keep their eyes on the prize.
But as a voter I really can't see a downside to this. I do like both candidates. I'm voting for Shanley as mayor (a point I'll expand on in a future post.) But I see no harm in writing in Holaday or Shanley as councilor-at-large as well.
The only potentially aggrieved parties I see in this scenario are the good folks who are busting their humps to run for councilor-at-large. They did put their names out there, and I'm sure they don't want more competition than they already have. Losing out to a write-in candidate has got to roast your potatoes after you've spent time and money on a campaign.
This feels like cheating in a way. But Stiles is quick to point out there's nothing illegal or unethical about this, and he's right. The city would be stronger with Holaday and Shanley in the game rather than having one on the sidelines.
I think I love this idea.
15 comments:
I agree, that's why I never give up my seat to old folk or pregnant women.
Ummm...okay.
Can someone check on Bubba?
Well, I'm not sure that we should lower the bar such that what's legal or ethical serve as our only guide as I believe I have no legal or ethical obligation to relinguish my train seat. And while what Mr Stiles proposes meets the letter of the law, I'm not sure it meets the spirit of a candidate being limited to running for one office at a time. That you justify it based on the ends should be an indicator of its inappropriateness. Would you reach the same conclusion were it two candidates you didn't like ?
Oh I see. I apologize I didn't see the connection.
I don't know. Clearly if I didn't like both candidates I wouldn't write their names on the ballot. It wouldn't make it any more or less proper.
Nothing on the ballot says you can't write in the name of a candidate for another office. However, there are signs that ask you to reliniquish seats.
Perhaps the better analogy is whether or not I can put a chair out to secure the parking space I just shoveled. In that case, the answer is yes.
I guess I'm just an outlaw.
Right, but how would you feel if a candidate you didn't like was elected through said means ? I'm concerned about how this may be perceived as you wrote "this feels like cheating..." I like them both as well, it just doesn't feel right. I need to work at becoming more ends-based.
I don't think I'd feel cheated, but it's hard to put myself in that place.
Let me ask you this: Would Shanley or Holladay fall into your top five fav Councilor-at-Large Candidates?
They certainly do on my list. But I'm using the ends to justify the means again.
Then again, there is no rule agains it.
It's not unlike the situation in West Newbury a few months back when the fellow defeated the incumbent through the "stealth" write-in campaign. I had no problem his election even though some saw it as sneaky.
At the end of the night, I want the best 12 people leading this city. If no laws or promises are broken, I'm okay with it.
Good talk though.
You're supporting James Shanely for mayor? Well, knock me over with a feather!!! What a shock!!
Well, at least we're both consistent as I was troubled by what happened in W Newbury.
Call it clever, sneaky, legal, whatever - I think it undermines democracy and potentially polarizes the community. Perhaps I have more empathy and more concern for the means than the ends.
My stance on West Newbury was simple. Folks who don't vote don't get to complain about the results. Own your apathy.
http://www.newburyportposts.com/2009/05/own-your-apathy.html
Well, I guess this is where we agree to disagree - but fear not, I'll still hold the door open for you even when inconvenient.
And I'm still missing the connection, but I'll try.
I know we're cross pollinating blog, but Gillian suggests it would be more "right" to write in the names of people who have expressed no interest in serving in public office than to write in one of the mayoral candidates.
Far as I can tell, the only difference between the scenarios is Holaday and Shanley stand a better chance of winning than a random write-in.
Thoughts?
Yes, it's a matter of principle, it's the right thing to do, do unto others, etc. I have no legal or ethical obligation to hold the door for anyone, nor do I base my decision on whether the other party is worthy of it. I consider it loophole that need not be exploited. I'm going to vote for 5 of the 7 people who have invested their time and money to place their names on the ballot for councillor at large.
You should definitely do what you think is right for the candidates running and I'll do what I think is right for the city.
Incidentally, I do hold doors, stop at crosswalks, and tip generously at local coffee houses. I'd hate for people to think me a monster because I might cast a write-in vote.
Tom,
This debate has been raging for a long time, you're more of a utilitarian and I'm more of a deontologist. I think we can peacefully co-exist.
I don't see what you're being a physician has to do with anything.
Just kidding. Of course we can. I enjoy a spirited argument. Reminds me of holiday dinners at the Salemi table, without the lasagna of course.
Post a Comment