Dispatches from the Eccentric Frontier - Hold your nose and vote on Tuesday, November 8, 2011

October 26th, 2011

Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
[User Picture]

13:56 Hold your nose and vote on Tuesday, November 8, 2011

As usual, I’ve written up my research notes for the coming election so you can all crib from my work. I’ve given my conclusions, and invite everyone to come to their own. Even if we disagree on everything, I'm still happy if this collection of links saved you a headache.

As of this writing, the Santa Clara County Republican Party of Silicon Valley has not endorsed anyone, though they were willing to walk precincts for Jim Davis. There are no published endorsements that I can find on the DAWN, PSOA, BAYMEC, or SunPAC web sites.

Current Mood: tired tired
(8 rants | My 2¢)
Tags: ,
Comments
[User Picture]
From:kalimac
Date:October 26th, 2011 21:27 (UTC)
(Link)
I attended last night's debate, but didn't see you there.

Chang: Talked a lot about planning issues, the one subject he can discuss without sounding like a completely empty bag of wind. Gave me a more positive impression.

Meyering: Crafted his pre-set sound bites around any question he was asked. When asked if Sv should provide more housing because of increased local tech hiring, he said that Google's new workers are Google's problem, not Sv's problem. Bzzz.

Hoffman: When asked why he's never voted in Council elections, he said that until recently he'd never known anything about any contentious civic issues. Bzzz. Neither did I, when I moved here four years ago and found a Council election going on under my nose; that's why I took the trouble to find out.

Walker: When Meyering said there were no shuttle buses serving the industrial district, Walker said there were. Hard to get info (the links from the Moffett Park Business Assn, to which Walker'd directed us, are broken, not a good sign), but apparently Walker is right.

Davis: When asked about having an ex-cop voting on police salaries, Davis said there'd be no conflict of interest for him, because he has integrity. Bzzz. So judges who recuse themselves from cases; they don't have integrity?

Fowler: If you hear those "does not play well with others" issues from the Mercury News, I wouldn't trust their opinion with a ten-foot beanstalk.

Martin-Milius: Continues to talk as if she thinks all our problems will be solved if we just smile harder. If elected, she'll be on the fast track to be chosen mayor for sure.

Pan: Could you repeat the question, please? I'll have to study that issue. (repeat as needed) Bzzz. One surprisingly tough position, though: Openly threatened to vote to kick Pat Meyering off the Council if they're both elected and he doesn't behave.

Measure A: I'm voting No because the arguments in favor are stupider than the arguments against. The Merc's argument in favor is the stupidest yet.
[User Picture]
From:slothman
Date:October 26th, 2011 21:40 (UTC)
(Link)
I had formed sufficient opinions at the previous debate and went off to Zen meditation instead. Thanks for the update!

I have heard about Fowler’s issues from more than the Merc.
[User Picture]
From:kalimac
Date:October 26th, 2011 21:54 (UTC)
(Link)
He was very gallant towards his opponents last night. Even fetched them cups of water. Spoke well of them in the question intended to be read as "trash-talk your opponents, please."

Chang and Meyering, on the other hand, plunged in with gusto. Meyering: "My opponent received $x,000 in contributions from the downtown developer." Chang: "There is no downtown developer; he quit. Besides, I only received $300." Meyering: "Why would a developer contribute $300 to a candidate 400 miles away unless they thought they could influence his vote?"
[User Picture]
From:canyonwalker
Date:October 26th, 2011 21:43 (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks, as always, for putting this together.

Measure A is a tough one to evaluate. On the one hand, I am inclined to support it on the philosophical belief that direct election of key political officials is better than letting a committee choose amongst themselves. On the other hand, I am inclined to vote against it because, as you said in so many words, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's not clear that anything is wrong with the existing mayoral system, and it's not clear that the proposed change is superior. I routinely vote NO on most ballot initiatives for that reason and I may well do so on this one, too.
[User Picture]
From:slothman
Date:October 26th, 2011 21:59 (UTC)
(Link)
It is not clear to me that there aren’t problems that could be solved by a directly elected mayor, but I don’t think Measure A received the amount of thought that would be required in order to fix those (potential) problems.
[User Picture]
From:kalimac
Date:October 26th, 2011 22:00 (UTC)
(Link)
I find the argument that "We don't get to elect our mayors" disingenuous. Most non-large cities don't directly elect their mayors; if this were a shocking violation of democracy, it'd have come up more before now. Also: they're all council members, and we do elect them. The job of mayor here is not sufficiently different from that of other council members to make that any more of a legitimate complaint than which council members are chosen for which intergovernmental committees.
[User Picture]
From:slothman
Date:October 27th, 2011 6:05 (UTC)
(Link)
Looks like you need to log in to the Campaign Statement Public Portal to get the public filings to work, possibly via netfile.com or City of Sunnyvale: Elections.
[User Picture]
From:merhawk
Date:November 8th, 2011 14:54 (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for the round-up! It really makes my decisions easier when much of the information I need is in one place.
GeoURL XFN friendly Powered by LiveJournal.com