Comments on I-26: The Republican Cloaking Measure

I'm too lazy to check the PDC website right now, but was there a no campaign? Usually if someone throws enough "no" information out there, people will end up voting no, not necessarily because they're convinced its a bad idea, but because they're unsure.

Some questions I want to throw out there for the group:

If non-partisan races work for cities, why not the County?

Does Gossett really think that some not-labeled-as-such Republican will be elected in the 2nd District, or conversely, a Democrat elected in the 3rd or 9th?

Don't Councilmembers get elected pretty much on "slick advertising, pretty pictures, and name familiarity" now?

Even if some Councilperson who is 'out of touch' with their district is elected, won't that (in theory) self-correct in the next election?

Do non-partisan races really work for the city? Do non-district races? Does this wacked out system of having no districts, but seats, work for the city?

No progressive thought I -200 was progressive. It was sold as an anti-affirmative action measure.

Dan @ 4: I wasn't trying to be snarky; I truly haven't made up my mind. That said, I understand Gossett's point, but I don't see how passing I-26 will result in some Republican take over of KC government, given the make-up of the County.

This is a big win for Republicans which stands to pick up future seats on the County Council with this bill. When there is no info about a candidate's political party Republicans will win countrywide elections almost every time. They are amazing at being able to get their info out about candidates to every R even in D districts but without the Dems being able to use it against the candidate. I am always amazed at their ability to do this with Judge candidates such as Jeanette Burrage who was rated Not Qualified but actually won because she was so conservative.

I would have said the Republican cloaked candidates are great at lying about who and what they are, GS.