Vote Early and Vote Often

Over the years, I have quite purposefully stayed away from discussing partisan politics in my writings. Sit down with me and we'll discuss politics as long as you want. On-line discussions of politics, however, inevitably turn into the lunatic fringe- that's why I stay away from it.

A good friend of mine only follows national politics. I primarily follow state politics.

But like Tip said, all politics is local.

The latest uniform election was a few weeks ago; in a couple of more weeks, the immediate fates of those candidates who have advanced to a run-off will be decided.

In my county, there are 395,461 registered voters. My city holds claim to 43,497 of them. As of May 1, 2007, my city's population was 94,657, which comes out to a 45.9% registration rate. Even factoring in the under-18 population (unknown, at least to me) and the move-in rate (at least 200 individuals per week), there's a lot of people moving in and registering.

Getting them to pull the lever is another thing, however.

Only 2,270 (or 5.2%) showed up at the polls. And were I a bettin' man, I'd say that percentage is going to drop by at least half for the run-off. If that's the case, one percent of the population of one of the fastest growing cities in one of the fastest growing counties in the nation would decide its local leaders. Excuse me while I puke.

Furthermore, of the 2,270 ballots cast, 340 of them were not completely filled out. And there were only 3 items - one Constitutional amendment to adopt or not, and two at-large city council seats to refill due to term limits. I would prefer single member districts and no term limits, but that's just me.

The Constitutional amendment was easy - basically correcting an omission from last year's property tax relief bill. I'm more inclined to vote in favor of adopting amendments unless they are punitive. Since most are clean-up for previously-passed measures anyway, they aren't that difficult.

The city council races were a little more difficult. Since there is a dearth of information regarding local races and the candidates' platforms, most of the onus of voting comes down to looking at candidate's websites and personal gut checks. Granted, I'll also look at a person's endorsements, but that usually doesn't sway me. What may dissuade me, however, is unkempt roadway signs. If a candidate puts up a 4x4 and it has either leaned to one side or fallen down and the candidate hasn't fixed or replaced the sign, I might pull my vote. It's lazy and reflects poorly on a campaign.

It's my theory that there are basically three types of individuals who run for local office:

1. The person who runs for office in order to parlay that into a higher office.

2. The person who has been successful in the private sector and thinks government can be run like a business.

3. The person who believes quality of life can be improved through city parks, zoning, and art councils; who sees the low levels at Lake Lavon and can name three ways it may affect the tax base next year.

In local elections, I try to see who fits the third profile; that person gets my vote.

Which leads me to a council race in a neighboring city that I've been following.

Several years ago, I got involved in a congressional race. I worked on event planning and fund raising. A guy I got to know quite well worked on opposition research. The political path soon forked, and he took a job working on the campaign for a state representative in a bitter, nasty, and divisive House race. I knew this state rep and was concerned that his boss' reputation would follow my friend.

A few days before the election, my friend was accused of some rather disgusting tactics (to be fair, nothing was proven); not as direct result of this gutter strategy, but in the wake of it, his boss lost and the State of Texas is a better place for it. He then moved on to the campaign of a state-wide office holder and again, was accused of some rather unsavory tactics (again, to be fair, nothing was proven).

Which leads us to this city's council race.

It is of no surprise that his previous campaign experience (and everything that was never proven) has been mentioned by his opponents. He has also stoked the ire of a local ideological-opposite blogger and, again, has been accused of some less-than-ethical and other more blatant illegal campaign tactics.

But since he only has to appeal to approximately one percent of the population, I'd say the odds are pretty good in his run-off.

If you were bored by all that and not motivated to vote, here's some red meat for you:

I was listening to WBAP this afternoon as Hugh Hewitt railed against the Senate's immigration compromise. One of his points is that the inefficient federal government cannot perform a background check on an immigrant within 24 hours before denying a Z visa. I was confused because conservatives have been telling me for years that the same government can run an instant background check when I purchase a gun. Wouldn't it be the same data base?