![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajunJust had to vote in a runoff election for three judicial races in my county in which nobody got the requisite 50% plus one vote four weeks ago. Sadly, I only found out these three were going to runoff well after it was too late to get an absentee ballot to Tanzania for the Songbird (sorry, hon), but at least I was able to do my part after work...or try to.
Your Humble Correspondent wishes mightily that candidates for elected judgeships (especially state Supreme Court seats) would spare voters all the boilerplate about "serving justice" and "improving efficiency" and just tell us how the hell they'd rule on the issues that matter to most of us - the death penalty or LGBT hate crimes, ferinstance. Or at least admit which political party they favor. Such elections are a crapshoot because it's so damn hard to find out which candidate's views are closest to yours, even from the news media. This is particularly vital in runoffs as turnout tends to be far less than in the original election, especially around the winter holidays. (This is part of what cost us the chance to finally get rid of GOP Sen. Saxby "Shameless" Chambliss two years ago; his Dem opponent couldn't get our vote to show up a second time despite an endorsement from his biggest general-election ballot-mate, one Barack Obama.) One guy I at least had been tipped off about by the local paper's conservative op-ed guy endorsing him, but the others? Unlike most up-ballot candidates, these guys don't usually have the moolah to do much more than robo-calls and the occasional mailer to help us know any of them from Adam's off ox.
Oh, and if you're running for any office at all? If you send me junk-mail cards full of negative attacks on your opponent, that tends to nudge me towards automatically voting for them instead of you, for pure spite. Just a friendly tip.
Your Humble Correspondent wishes mightily that candidates for elected judgeships (especially state Supreme Court seats) would spare voters all the boilerplate about "serving justice" and "improving efficiency" and just tell us how the hell they'd rule on the issues that matter to most of us - the death penalty or LGBT hate crimes, ferinstance. Or at least admit which political party they favor. Such elections are a crapshoot because it's so damn hard to find out which candidate's views are closest to yours, even from the news media. This is particularly vital in runoffs as turnout tends to be far less than in the original election, especially around the winter holidays. (This is part of what cost us the chance to finally get rid of GOP Sen. Saxby "Shameless" Chambliss two years ago; his Dem opponent couldn't get our vote to show up a second time despite an endorsement from his biggest general-election ballot-mate, one Barack Obama.) One guy I at least had been tipped off about by the local paper's conservative op-ed guy endorsing him, but the others? Unlike most up-ballot candidates, these guys don't usually have the moolah to do much more than robo-calls and the occasional mailer to help us know any of them from Adam's off ox.
Oh, and if you're running for any office at all? If you send me junk-mail cards full of negative attacks on your opponent, that tends to nudge me towards automatically voting for them instead of you, for pure spite. Just a friendly tip.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-12-01 12:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-01 12:56 am (UTC)