Imagine my surprise when I received an official Kitsap County Voter’s Pamphlet in my mailbox. What was once declared a thing of the past because of cost, to be replaced by a more modern “electronic” pamphlet, has found its way from the budget waste bin to our homes. Might I add the Voter’s Pamphlet came just in time.
I cannot vote in many of the races, but they interest me just the same. I always appreciate learning what the individual candidates think you, as a voter, want to hear. I am really interested in the number of “fiscal conservatives” that are running for office this season. I know some of them. Their past records or public pronouncements would make it tough to support that position. Another great line is they are going to support “all the people” of their district. I would hope so, since that is what the elected positions are all about. Once again, however, while the positions may be non-partisan, the candidates are not and you can rest assured the underlying ideology will come to the fore right after swearing in is complete. If there were just some way other than to wait for a complete election cycle to correct errors and misunderstandings, the self-promotion of candidates might be amusing. Unfortunately, by the time it becomes apparent, once again, that “campaign promises” are little more than slick packaging to get your vote, the damage has been done.
In addition to reading the Voter’s Pamphlet, I have spent time reading what the papers had to say about candidate forums. In most cases, the offerings were little more than one-minute blasts of meaningless dribble. Whatever happened to real debates when the subject matter was picked by a panel who knew what was going on instead of by hangers-on who are intent on either showcasing or embarrassing a candidate? Think about asking a Bremerton Port Commissioner candidate exactly how they intended to make the marinas fiscally sound, a promise both candidates have made. Perhaps we could actually hear a plan that would include raising slip rates, eliminating unnecessary positions in staff and other real cost-reduction actions. How about a real debate about the actual mission of the Port and how that mission is to be successfully carried out? In the city races, perhaps we could have a real debate about the primary responsibilities of a city – I believe that public safety is number one. Perhaps we could move away from meaningless sound bytes and deal with real plans, intentions and candidate qualifications.
When we elect an individual to represent us, we expect them to carry out the functions of government, as “we the people” have defined them, in an effective and fiscally sound manner. We expect our police will have priority over a bunch of planners that write a never-ending stream of land use regulations no one really understands and cannot be enforced. We expect the funds allocated to the prosecutor’s office will be used to prosecute law breakers and not squandered defending silly ordinances that, in the long run, have little to do with our quality of life. We hope when cuts have to be made we keep the people who are essential to safety and real development in our community and let go those who, no matter how well intended, do little more than add confusion and complication to our lives. We also would like to think if a government can function effectively at an 80 percent level (the four-day week) in hard times, there will be no need to grow larger even if more money becomes “available” in the future.
Many people are still in the mode of voting for the “lesser of two evils” as if that choice would make some ultimate difference. I am still not convinced, in most casts, that there really is a “lesser” bad or “more acceptable” candidate in many of the choices offered to us. I am going to stick to my previous advice and write in “John Gault” as an indicator of dissatisfaction and disfavor, when appropriate. Care to join me?
Jack Hamilton can be reached at gradiver@wavecable.com.
