Author: Emmett O'Connell (Page 63 of 177)

One of the most interesting parts of the primary election cycle in Olympia for me is the difference between the folks that vote in the primary and those that vote in the general a few months later.

While I was really wrong about my original assumption about low turnout during this primary, its still interesting to look at what precincts will provide more votes in November.

The primary two years ago had a classic example of this shifting primary/general electorate. Rhenda Strub got through the primary with 3,000 votes (39 percent) but won the general with over 6,000 votes (55 percent). Her opponent barely improved here vote total in the primary, picking up less than 1,000 of the more than 4,000 available new votes.

So, there are a handful of precincts in Olympia that compared to the general in 2007 (the only comparable primary because it was the only one also held in August) voted in low numbers during the 2009 primary. The map below shows the 10 precincts that had less than 65 percent of the votes they had in 2007.

View under vote precincts in a larger map

Just a few thoughts about these precincts:

1. Most are on the edges of town. You could assume that these, then, are people who spend less time downtown and might shop in Lacey as much as they shop in Olympia.

2. 4 of the 10 are in SE Olympia. These are newer, probably more conservative (by Olympia standards) areas.

3. If you care about downtown, you voted in this election. I haven’t mapped the anti-Larida Passage candidates by precinct, so I don’t know if they did particularly well in one part of town. But from the low turnout in the non-downtown focused areas, I feel safe to say that Larida Passage brought people out for this one.

4. On the other hand, there will be people voting in November that don’t care much about Larida Passage. Turnout is going up in November, especially in these precincts. The question is who is going to speak to these folks who stayed out of the primary?

A much better answer to the question Rob and I raised earlier:

WIP: There’s been some discussion on the local blogs regarding your faith, and the possibility that it will affect your position on equal benefits for city employees with same sex domestic partners. Could you put this in perspective for WIP readers? What is your religious affiliation, and what influence will it have on your policy positions? And specifically, what is your position on same sex partner benefits?

KV: I support the city policy for equal benefits for same sex domestic partners. I am a member of the orthodox Presbyterian church and my religious faith will have no bearing on the decisions I will make as a civic leader on the Olympia city council. I believe in a separation of Church and State. Further, the state of Washington provides over 200 civil rights, many of which are very important to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered communities, and I support these laws as well.

Which, of course, she never says that being gay isn’t a sin, just that her faith doesn’t inform her political beliefs.

Just to be clear, I disagree with my church (up until recent months I was receiving communion at St. Mike’s Catholic Church and have been raised Catholic) on their position regarding homosexuality. Karen may very well believe being gay is a sin, but still support gay rights.

For the candidates that are carrying a sort of isthmus vote around with them this year (Amy Tousley on the planning commission, Jeff Kingsbury and Joan Machlis), its probably important to address the vote in a way that puts them past it. Machlis makes a good effort in her piece this morning on growth:

I want to acknowledge that feelings about land use are some of the strongest that emerge at the local government level. I am not satisfied that as a community we have found the best ways to discuss our differences concerning land use. As these differences will continue to occur throughout the community, I will work to improve the public process and the quality of these discussions.

This is the kicker for me:

The Thurston Regional Planning Council estimates that to accommodate 120 units of housing in Downtown with structured parking it takes 1.4 acres, while the same amount of housing would take 11 acres in the South Capitol Neighborhood, 39 acres in a suburban area, and 580 acres in the rural area zoned at 1 unit per five acres.

Its a good explanation of the facts and the dire situation we really are in that forces the kind of hard decisions that Joan and the rest of the council had to make. I’m certainly not proud of the decision, but I supported it, it was the best of a bad situation.

If there’s anything wrong with the post, its the formatting. Its on the long side, so changing up the formatting (section headers, bullet points) probably would help the reader slog through the entire piece.