« In the Forest |
The Morning News »
Posted by ELI SANDERS on September 25 at 21:31 PM
Word is that Jim Street called Jamie Pedersen earlier this evening to congratulate him on his (close) victory. The current tally in the 43rd District state house race:
Jamie Pedersen 23.47%
Jim Street 22.20%
Jim Street 22.20%
Probably so. It doesn't look close enough for a mandatory recount, which I believe kicks in if the margin is less than 0.5%.I suspect that tomorrow night's 43rd District Dems endorsement will still go to "whoever won".
N in Seattle |
September 25, 2006 9:42 PM
Does anybody else think there's something wrong with an election system where 23.47% from a limited electorate (semi-active Democratic Party members) is considered enough to assure someone a seat? I mean, Pederson and Street combined didn't reach the 50% mark...
I mean like... in the big picture, almost nobody actually voted for him.
September 25, 2006 9:55 PM
John above --- repeat this line, this is a primary by party voting. Small group of people by definition.
Jamie will get 88 percent of the total in Nov.
Slightly less the Murray or Chopp. Newbie.
Nice job, Jamie, homeboy homo makes good. And now the loosers need to go get drunk, scream at the sky, and go to work tomorrow to Keep Susan Owens on the Supreme Court.
That is, if fighting the right wing is more important than infighting.
The 43rd Dist. better commend Jamie or they are real duds.
September 25, 2006 10:18 PM
Well, John, you better start lobbying for instant runoff voting within the Democratic Party.
September 25, 2006 10:26 PM
We don't need IRV to solve this problem. The statewide initiative passed by voters two years ago mandating a top-two primary would have been enough. But the State Dems sued, and the courts decided that Parties have a constitutional right to have government pay for their primary elections that trumps voters' desires to vote for candidates in more than one party during a primary. Who knew?
Oh and that's pretty sad to argue that Pedersen's mandate will come from his coronation as the only Dem on the ticket in November. His power will come from there. But winning by a couple hundred votes in a district where only 35 percent of the registered voters actually bothered to vote is a pretty weak mandate.
September 25, 2006 11:32 PM
Thank God nobody's pulling a Lieberman.
September 26, 2006 1:04 AM
What percentage of the "deciding" electorate would you be comfortable with in a six-candidate race?
23.47% could be sufficient for a plurality even in a five-candidate race. This race could have been won by someone with as little as 17% of the vote.
I think you are looking at the numbers without understanding them. 23% seems paltry by the standards of the final vote in a two-party system, yes, but that is not what we are witnessing here. What do you want, a bracketed tournament? Single elimination from 64 down to the two finalists, with six rounds of voting?
If you want to propose an alternate voting system like Approval Voting, or something much more complicated but slightly more fair like Condorcet, or, gods help us, Instant Runoff, then say so.
Otherwise, just shut up with the innumerate "ONLY 23%" nonsense.
September 26, 2006 1:10 AM
Well W W WF----
Maybe you need to get a giant contest going in the REPUBLICAN priamry next time to amp up the numbers, other wise they just sit it out.
Or- go work on youth, they don't vote in any elections until they pass 25 - oh, not supposed to tell the truth on that issue.
The mandate is winning. And as Democrats do, joining in unity to fight the neo fascist takeover of America.
oh, that. Interlude of navel gazing is over. Real world permeates.
September 26, 2006 2:56 AM
Congratulations to Pedersen. So many here thought he wouldn't win, so I was a bit surprised that he kept going up in the absentees and finally won. What a classy reaction from Jim Street.
September 26, 2006 8:38 AM
Great. What was his final dollar-raised-per-vote total? And when does Abramoff move to town?
September 26, 2006 9:12 AM
Doesn't really matter that only 23% voted for him, or any of them, they are basically all the same. Any one of them would have been good on all the issues that the 43rd voters and/or progressives care about.
September 26, 2006 9:40 AM
One can only imagine the Olympia hair gel lobby is ecstatic.
September 26, 2006 10:05 AM
Pedersen wins with 23% because there were six strong candidates. Usually, in a six candidate race, you’ll find two candidates or so around 4-5%.
I can’t recall the last place candidate in a six person race (or a four or five person race for that matter) getting 11%, or the difference between first and last ever being only 12%.
Compared to most election races, no one sucked in this one.
September 26, 2006 10:39 AM
N said: "I suspect that tomorrow night's 43rd District Dems endorsement will still go to "whoever won"."
Well, that is the technical ballot question tonight. They were all good candidates.
I agree it's interesting how high the numbers were for the other candidates.
Will in Seattle |
September 26, 2006 11:11 AM
BB hits it. This was a race with six strong, solid entrants and zero joke candidates. Though we all had our favorites and our personal rank-orders (mine was nowhere near the actual result), it was and is unquestionable that all five non-winners and all Democratic activists in the 43rd will rally behind the winner, our next Representative in position #1.The 43rd District Democrats will proudly and unanimously endorse Jamie Pedersen at our meeting tonight.Final note about "winning with only 23%"... All of the candidates went into the race in full knowledge that a significant majority of the voters would vote for someone else. They were also fully aware that that's the way the system works, and fully accepted that that's how it was going to be. If someone didn't accept and understand such a system, they wouldn't have gotten into the race in the first place.
N in Seattle |
September 26, 2006 11:14 AM
Hey, WF, the problem is that the top two primary isn't constitutional. IRV is. And look on the bright side, at least people in the 43rd had a competitive primary. Over here in the 37th, someone will have to die before we have one.
September 26, 2006 4:15 PM
Actually Gitai, there have been several competitive races in the 37th in the last few years. For example, when Kip Takuda (sp?) retired and when Dawn Mason challenged Adam Kline for the Senate seat. I'm sure we'll have another race before too long. Maybe one of them will run for Larry Gossett's seat. The King County Council pays a lot more than being a state legislator.
Scott H. |
September 26, 2006 7:23 PM
The real problem is that this district is one of the few in which a progressive candidate can win. As a result, it attracted a lot of good candidates.
It's kind of a waste to worry too much about this race, the real problem is that none of these candidates can win in Shorline or Woodenville and nobody's doing anything about that. Nobody's out there making a case for these ideas.
September 26, 2006 8:05 PM
ionolsen16 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!www_4_2
October 13, 2006 4:39 AM
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122