My unhappiness started when First Tech's website was down for 5 days, worse yet, a scheduled 5 days, so they could upgrade their online banking. In this day and age to have a 5 day downtime for an upgrade is unacceptable. This is not the 1990s. This isn't even the 2000s.

Things only got worse when, according to their own notice the upgrade failed because after 5 days of being down they got three times their normal traffic and couldn't handle the load. Huh? You were down for 5 days, what the heck did you think was going to happen? Of course you're going to get a load spike! Their solution was to roll all of their website back to the old website so they could get back up and running while they figured out what to do about the extra load. The planning screw ups this situation called for are, well, concerning.

All of this was irritating but then there was the final straw. Their new on-line bill pay system wouldn't work for me. It kept saying my login failed. I sent mail to their help desk and they quickly responded (still good customer service). Their instructions were for me to reset my browser's security settings to accept third party cookies. What? I have to commit one of the most basic privacy mistakes and let everybody on the Internet trivially track me just so I can use your bill pay service?

This is a bank we're talking about. An institution which is supposed to be all about privacy. And they are so clueless that they think it's o.k. to require third party cookies? Their previous behavior already gave me good reason to question their technical competence but this is just over the top.

So does anyone have a recommendation for a bank with a solid web banking system that has a clue about privacy?

• Initiative Measure No. 1033 - NO

• Referendum Measure No. 71 - APPROVED

• King County Charter Amendment No. 1 - YES

• King County Charter Amendment No. 2 - YES

• King County Charter Amendment No. 3 - YES

• King County Charter Amendment No. 4 - YES

• King County Executive - Dow Constantine

• Sheriff - Sue Rahr

• King County Assessor - Bob Rosenberger

• Metropolitan King County Council District No. 3 - Kathy Lambert

• Court of Appeals, Division No. 1, District No.1 Judge Position No. 3 - Anne L. Ellington

• Port of Seattle Commissioner Position No. 1 - John Creighton

• Port of Seattle Commissioner Position No. 3 - Rob Holland

• Port of Seattle Commissioner Position No. 4 - Tom Albro

• City of Redmond - Council Position No. 2 - John P. (Pat) Vache

• City of Redmond - Council Position No. 4 - Kim Allen

• City of Redmond - Council Position No. 6 - John Stilin

• Lake Washington School District No. 414 Director District No. 3 - Nancy Phillips Bernard

• Lake Washington School District No. 414 Director District No. 4 - Doug Eglington

• Public Hospital District No. 2 - Commissioner District No. 1 - Al F. DeYoung

• Public Hospital District No. 2 -Commissioner Position No. 4 - Charles A. Pilcher

Initiative Measure No. 1033 - NO

This initiative would limit the rate of growth in spending at all levels of government in Washington state to the rate of inflation plus an adjustment based on population growth. It would take our current budget as its baseline. I support the core idea behind this initiative, that we should have a rate limiter on the growth of government spending. But it's not clear me to me that a recession era budget is the right base or that the inflation rate is the right limiter. I would rather see a base of a more normal budget and a limiter that is based on the wealth of the state, not an adjustment of fluctuations in the money supply. So this gets a no from me.

Referendum Measure No. 71 - APPROVED

My preference would be to get the state out of the marriage business all together and just have domestic partnerships that would be open to any and all. But until then this bill which creates a legal definition of 'domestic partnership' and accords it many of the same rights as marriage is at least a step in the right direction.

King County Charter Amendment No. 1 - YES

Near as I can tell this is what it says it is, a clean up. King County has gone through some transitions in government over the last decades and sections of the charter were added to deal with those transitions. Now that the transitions are done it's time to remove the transitional language.

King County Charter Amendment No. 2 - YES

This would appear to be another clean up of an obsolete section of the charter regarding a budget control process that is no longer used. I can't find anything, anywhere, saying that this is anything other than what it looks like, clean up, so I'm going with it.

King County Charter Amendment No. 3 - YES

Every decade a committee is supposed to get together to review the King County charter and recommend changes to the county council if the committee thinks they are needed. It would appear that the current law is a bit fuzzy on who exactly has to approve the composition of this committee. This charter amendment would clarify that the county council decides who is on the committee. Second, this amendment would specify that the review committee's recommendations have to be publicly reviewed and responded to by the council. This all sounds fine to me.

King County Charter Amendment No. 4 - YES

King County owns a number of parcels of land that it has marked for preservation. This amendment would put in place a number of hoops that anyone who wants to develop that land would have to jump through. First, there would have to be a 28 day review period on the requests. Second, the county council would have to vote by a super majority (7 out of 9 votes) to approve the new usage. The point is to make it hard to 'un-preserve' this preserved land. Note, this amendment only applies to land that the county already owns. It doesn't call for buying any new land and it doesn't apply to non-county owned land. The only thing I don't like about this amendment is that it requires the same super majority to add new land to the protected list. I would have actually liked to have seen a lower bar for adding properties. But whatever, it's still a good thing so I'll go with it.

King County Executive - Dow Constantine

Susan Hutchison - First, it's unclear to me what qualifications Ms. Hutchison has to run for King County Executive. Being on the board of the creationist Discovery Institute (and yes, the Discovery Institute has tried to erase her name) doesn't really count, although it certainly puts us on very different ends of the political spectrum. Her time as executive director of various small organizations and board of directors is nice but this isn't real executive or government experience.

Dow Constantine - At least Mr. Constantine has some serious qualifications for the position as someone who has sat on the King County council. That doesn't mean he will make a good executive but it does mean he at least knows the ins and out of King County government. I also liked his website because he has more than one idea (Ms. Hutchison seems to believe in Zero based accounting, that's about it) and talks about them reasonably clearly. Unfortunately I really dislike his ideas. I think his support of light rail is just, well, wacky (let's spend billions moving no one, see the bottom of my article here explaining the details) and his support of deep bore tunnels in Seattle is... frightening. The tunnels will turn into a multi-billion dollar boondoggle that will do little more than pay off a bunch of construction and property development interests. Only the citizens will lose.

This race is so stereotypical it makes me want to cry. There's something so nasty about this. Putting up two extremes of the scale. An unqualified creationist or a tax and spend liberal? I'll go with the experience and vote for the liberal.

King County Sheriff - Sue Rahr

She is running unopposed.

King County Assessor - Bob Rosenberger

Graham Albertini - His pitch is that he teaches assessors how to assess so he is qualified for the position. His not so coded language is that he will give people lower assessments.

Gene Lux - His pitch seems to be that he has been in the construction industry and involved in politics for decades and he knows that assessments are important but I have no sense of what he would do in office.

Lloyd Hara - His pitch is is that he has lots of political experience including a financial background from his time as Seattle City Treasurer and King County Auditor. Oh and he'll reduce our assessments.

Bob Rosenberger - He may win for voters pamphlet entry that most misses the point. This guy is a former assessor for King County with tons of experience but I couldn't figure that out from his pamphlet description. And like everyone else he promises to lower our taxes.

Bob Blanchard - He has worked for a real estate company (another fox...) but he is also the only person to actually propose something which is that he will switch to a system where by property is evaluated every two years instead of every year. Is that even within the power of the assessor to decide?

To help me narrow things down I'm going to use the Muni League ratings and knock out Bob Blanchard and Gene Lux. I took a look at the three remaining candidate's website and by far Mr. Rosenberger's positions impressed me the most. He just lays it out point by point, and it all made sense to me.

Comparing the three I think that Mr. Albertini doesn't have the executive experience to really do the job. I'm worried about Mr. Rosenberger's executive experience although his experience with the office is obviously beyond reproach and his plans are very solid. Mr. Hara clearly has the necessary executive experience but his plans for the office felt vague to me, more like "I'll figure it out when I get there." In an ideal world Mr. Hara would win and Mr. Rosenberger would be his assistant. But I have to pick one and I think that of the three Mr. Rosenberger is likely to do the job best.

Metropolitan King County Council District No. 3 - Kathy Lambert

She is running unopposed.

Court of Appeals, Division No. 1, District No.1 Judge Position No. 3 - Anne L. Ellington

She is running unopposed.

Port of Seattle Commissioner Position No. 1 - John Creighton

He is running unopposed.

Port of Seattle Commissioner Position No. 3 - Rob Holland

Rob Holland - I think his summary is (Union) jobs for everyone! His muni survey does draw out a distinction between him and Doud. Holland wants the port to focus on promoting maritime trade while I think Doud wants the port to focus on real estate development. Mr. Holland's website also focuses on specific ideas around developing jobs at the port.

David Doud - Make the port earn more money! I read Doud's muni survey and near as I can tell he didn't say anything. But if I'm reading between the lines I believe his goal is to get the port to invest in real estate (did we mention that he is a property investor?). I checked out Mr. Doud's website and couldn't find any meaningful content.

Neither of these candidates is my cup of tea. Mr. Holland's focus on creating jobs worry me. I would rather have a port commissioner focused on promoting maritime trade and let the jobs part handle itself (e.g. if the port can run better with fewer people that's fine with me). On the other hand it's not completely clear to me that Mr. Doud even knows he is running for port commissioner. What little he says doesn't seem to have much to do with the port. So Mr. Holland gets my vote.

Port of Seattle Commissioner Position No. 4 - Tom Albro

Tom Albro - His voter pamphlet entry read like a conspiracy story so I instead went to his website. He apparently likes videos which I'm not going to spend the time to watch but he does provide the transcripts which is useful. He lays out some basic ideas on how to reduce carbon emissions at the port (getting rid of deadheading of various types, good idea). Unfortunately that was the only substantive thing I could find him saying on his site besides an idea to let businesses threatened by Green River flooding use vacant port lands. Otherwise it's the standard "green jobs" line everyone has. I do like the fact that he ran the muni league for several years.

Max Vekich - His website suggests a few changes including 24 hour operation, allowing ships to connect to port power to not run their (dirty) engines and for the rest requiring carbon scrubbers while in port and cab (specifically) deadheading. Unlike Mr. Albro who is mostly a businessman, Mr. Vekich is a professional politician. According to what he says about himself in his Muni form his legislative record doesn't appear particularly compelling, a farm worker unemployment bill and the getting the state to either build or buy (his Muni form isn't clear) the Lady Washington tall ship.

So when in doubt, follow the money. According to the Public Disclosure Commission Mr. Albro has received $157,875.50 in contributions so far and has spent $122,550.99 in expenditures. This money is coming from (in order of size of contribution) folks like Alaska Airlines, CityIce Cold Storage, Marine Resources Group, Washington Association of Realtors, Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, Trident Marine, Holland America, etc. In other words the businesses who use the port want Mr. Albro.

Mr. Vekich has raised $127,930.57 to date and spent $74,979.87. But before you think that puts him at a disadvantage he also has had $39,890.08 of independent spending (which I believe is money spent in support of the candidate that is not directly controlled by the candidate). So in fact the two candidates are neck and neck in terms of cash on hand. And Mr. Vekich's contributions are unions down the line. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, HOD Carriers & General Laborers Local 242, IBEW Local 77, ILWU Locals 19 and 52, Inland Boatmen's Union of the Pacific, etc.

So the choice is - businesses or unions? It's really hard to take Mr. Albro's protestations of green given who is paying for him. On the other hand I can't see Mr. Vekich making the port profitable and competitive given the iron chain of unions dragging him below the water (something I was willing to put up with in terms of Mr. Holland in the previous position because I felt him the better qualified candidate). I do think Mr. Albro's resume is more impressive so Mr. Albro gets the nod by a hair.

City of Redmond - Council Position No. 2 - John P. (Pat) Vache

He is running unopposed.

City of Redmond - Council Position No. 4 - Kim Allen

Sally J. Chen - Neither her voter pamphlet entry nor her website provides anything I can really sink my teeth into. She does lay out her priorities but they are so general as to not really help me understand what she wants to do and they don't seem meaningfully different than anything the council in general or her opponent in particular have to say. She does mention no new taxes, not letting Redmond become too metropolitan and lots of greenery on her website but again, this is all standard. Her main point, something she repeats everywhere from the pamphlet to her candidate website is that she's young, the council is old, so we should vote for her. As someone closer to old than young that isn't going to cut a lot of slack with me.

Kim Allen - While Ms. Chen's website is light, Ms. Allen's is near empty. Desperate to find anything I watched her candidate video. Her pitch is basically she has experience, she's connected, she wants to bring us lots of busses and light rail and she wants affordable housing in the city.

The candidate's information doesn't give me much to go on. But what I do see is that Ms. Allen's background and experience seem to make her an excellent fit for the job while Ms. Chen's do not. Without some strong differentiator I'm going to go with Ms. Allen.

City of Redmond - Council Position No. 6 - John Stilin

He is running unopposed.

Lake Washington School District No. 414 Director District No. 3 - Nancy Phillips Bernard

She is running unopposed.

Lake Washington School District No. 414 Director District No. 4 - Doug Eglington

The other candidate withdrew.

Public Hospital District No. 2 - Commissioner District No. 1 - Al F. DeYoung

He is running unopposed.

Public Hospital District No. 2 -Commissioner Position No. 4 - Charles A. Pilcher

Charles A. Pilcher - His pitch is that he is an emergency room doctor with long experience at Everygreen as a director and as a manager so the move to the board is a natural one and besides there hasn't been a doctor on the board in years and it's about time there was one.

Rex H. Lindquist - His pitch is that he has been on the board for over 10 years, doesn't have any conflicts of interest (I'm assuming this is a jab at the fact that Mr. Pilcher is a doctor) and won't take donations.

Mr. Lindquist's comment about donations got my attention. I checked the Public Disclosure Commission website and as of today Mr. Pilcher has not received any direct contributions but he has received $15,072.10 in indirect support. Unfortunately the PDC doesn't record who those donations are from. And true to his word Mr. Lindquist has not taken any direct or indirect contributions. What's equally interesting is that the entire existing Hospital board have publicly backed Mr. Pilcher against Mr. Lindquist.

In thinking this one through I would have liked to have seen Mr. Lindquist put up a website and explain why he should win over Mr. Pilcher. I would also like to understand his view on why the entire existing board has come out against him. But unfortunately no website is listed in the voter pamphlet nor did a search turn up anything. Given the board's lack of support for Mr. Lindquist and without any counter as to why this is I'm left supporting Mr. Pilcher even though is primary claim to fame (e.g. that he is a doctor) is not something that I think should necessarily carry the day.

I tried out the autosock on my car last winter and this winter. Both times they worked really well. They gave me excellent traction both on packed and loose snow. They take literally 60 seconds to put on and take off. They aren't perfect but they work pretty well. Where I ran into problems with them is on slushy snow. I had to rock the car several times, driving back and forth, to get through a few really slushy patches. And when the snow started to seriously melt the autosock met it's match and stopped working. But so long as the snow was reasonably solid (e.g. power or packed) they worked well. I tried them on the steep hills around my home and they gave excellent traction both going up and down hills. Besides the looks on people's faces as a Prius with what looked like a shower cap on its wheels confidently drove past in the two foot snow was priceless.

I have never driven a four wheel drive but my guess is that autosocks are no substitute for a four wheel drive or real snow tires. But they got me around just fine and the cost is certainly right.

• President/Vice President- Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez

• United States Representative – Congressional District No. 1 – Jay Inslee

• Governor – Christine Gregoire

• Lieutenant Governor – Marcia McCraw

• Secretary of State – Jason Osgood

• State Treasurer – Allan Martin

• State Auditor – Brian Sonntag

• Attorney General – Rob McKenna

• Commissioner of Public Lands – Peter J. Goldmark

• Superintendent of Public Instruction – Randy Dorn

• Insurance Commissioner – Mike Kreidler

• State Representative – Legislative Dist No. 45 – Position 1 – Roger Goodman

• State Representative – Legislative Dist No. 45 – Position 2 – Larry Springer

• State Supreme Court – Justices of the Supreme Court – Position 3 – Mary Fairhurst

• State Supreme Court – Justices of the Supreme Court – Position 4 – Charles W. Johnson

• State Supreme Court – Justices of the Supreme Court – Position 7 – Debra L. Stephens

• Court of Appeals, Division No. 1 – District No. 1 – Judge Position 5 – Lau, Linda

• Court of Appeals, Division No. 1 – District No. 1 – Judge Position 6 – Ann Schindler

• Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 1 – Tim Bradshaw

• Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 22 – Julia Garratt

• Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 37 – Jean Rietschel

• Initiative Measure No. 985 – No

• Initiative Measure No. 1000 – Yes

• Initiative Measure No. 1029 – No

• King County Charter Amendment No.1 – No

• King County Charter Amendment No. 2 – Yes

• King County Charter Amendment No. 3 – Yes

• King County Charter Amendment No. 4 – No

• King County Charter Amendment No. 5 – Yes

• King County Charter Amendment No. 6 – Yes

• King County Charter Amendment No. 7 – No

• King County Charter Amendment No. 8 – No

• Sound Transit – Proposition No. 1 – No

President/Vice President

See my dedicated article on the subject.

All other elected positions

See my article from the primaries. It lists all the positions, reviews the candidates and explains who I am voting for and why.

Initiative Measure No. 985 – No

This bill seems to be about putting more money into roads. But it does so, amongst other ways, by removing investments in public arts (currently 0.5% of the cost of any construction project must be spent on public art), restricting the hours that HOV lanes can be restricted for HOV use and most tellingly, would redirect 15% of all sales tax monies for building roads. The act explicitly bans the use of the moneys it collects for bike paths, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail or heavy rail. I really think this act should be called the "pave Washington under" act. And, I know this will sound weird, but it turns out that building more roads doesn't solve traffic problems. The world envisioned by 985 is literally a concrete/asphalt choked waste land filled with idling cars. No thanks.

Initiative Measure No. 1000 – Yes

I believe that each of us has a fundamental right to control our lives and that includes ending our lives if we so choose. Initiative 1000 would allow people who have been diagnosed as having 6 months or less to live the right to get a prescription for a deadly dose of drugs so they can end their lives. I actually don't think the act goes far enough since it only covers people who are still physically capable of taking the drugs on their own, doctors can only provide a prescription and but no one can assist the ill person in taking the drugs. But I do believe that Initiative 1000 is a step in the right direction. I am concerned about potential for abuse of the act (e.g. relatives pressuring someone to kill themselves in order to reduce bills) but the experience in Oregon with a very similar law has not shown any substantive abuse. I will therefore be voting yes.

Initiative Measure No. 1029 – No

The measure requires increased training and background checks for long term home care workers. This might sound like a good thing but it's unclear that the additional training provides any actual benefits, the background checks are often redundant with other ones already performed by the state and the bill's main sponsor is apparently the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Near as I can tell the main purpose of this bill is to raise the barrier to entry to becoming a long term care worker. One suspects the initiative is especially pointed at foreign care workers who would find it hard to overcome the language barrier of the training even though language is not a major issue in their day to day work of changing adult diapers, helping people to brush their teeth, etc. This measure seems to be less about providing quality care and affordable prices to our rapidly aging population and more about helping the SEIU to keep out foreigners and build up their union. Given the burdens this bill would put on care providers, especially parents taking care of their own children (which even the bill's sponsors admit that at least 25% of those families would fall under the bill's extensive training provisions), the $30 million plus unfunded costs to the state and the lack of what I believe to be compelling evidence of any real benefit, I am voting no.

King County Charter Amendment No. 1 – No

Context is, alas, everything. This bill is being pushed by a bunch of Republicans who realizing that saying "Republican" is a death wish on the ballot in western Washington and so want to create positions that don't need party affiliation to be declared. Don't believe me? Pull out your voter pamphlet and look at what party Dino Rosi is affiliated with, surprise, not Republican, no, it's the GOP. Now yes, the GOP is a synonym for Republican but it isn't the party's official name and this is the kind of game playing that has motivated this initiative. So I'm voting no more to stop Republicans from playing games than because I necessarily disagree with having an elected non-partisan official manage elections.

King County Charter Amendment No. 2 – Yes

This measure would add disability, sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to the existing sex, race, color, national origin, religious affiliation or age as things that can't be used to discriminate against county employees or people who work for contractors who do business with the county. This is actually already state law and this initiative just 'tidies' things up a bit.

King County Charter Amendment No. 3 – Yes

The King County Council size was reduced from 13 to 9 members several years ago but there are three regional committees which are 50% made up of county council members and 50% made up of city representatives. This bill would change the math so that only 3 instead of six county council members would need to sit on the committees and give the committees additional powers which boil down to giving the cities' representatives the ability to initiate legislation that the council has to consider. This seems to basically be a trade off. The council gets more time to focus on other issues and in return the cities get slightly more power. I say 'slightly' because this amendment would give the 3 council members on the committees two votes instead of one so the power balance been county and city would remain essentially the same. Not an ideal situation but not horrible so probably worth voting for.

King County Charter Amendment No. 4 – No

This amendment would allow the council to add mandatory qualifications to certain elected positions like assessor. My feeling is that if you are going to make a position an elected position then you trust the people to make a reasonable choice. If someone runs who is not qualified for the position then it is the job of the electorate to reject the person. My suspicion is that what this amendment would really be used for is to put road blocks in front of candidates a majority of the council doesn't like.

King County Charter Amendment No. 5 – Yes

Today King County financial forecasts are made by the executive office, not the legislature which puts the legislature at a disadvantage in understand King County's financial state and voting on the budget. This amendment would create a n executive/legislative economic council that would jointly appoint a chief economist to provide unbiased financial information. Apparently Washington State adopted this approach 24 years ago and generally everyone is pretty happy with the results so now King County wants in on the fun. This all seems very reasonable so I'm voting yes.

King County Charter Amendment No. 6 – Yes

This amendment would require county agencies and the county executive to submit their budgets 20 days earlier than the current dates set in 1971. The idea is to give the legislature 20 additional days to review the $4.9 billion county budget. Given that when the original dates were set in 1971 the budget was 43 times smaller, the population 600,000 people less and the county had less responsibilities this amendment seems to make lots of sense.

King County Charter Amendment No. 7 – No

This initiative would increase the requirement to get a citizen initiative to amend the King County Charter from 10% of the people who voted for the King County executive in the last election to 20%. It would also simplify the process of getting an amendment adopted by replacing the current system (which first requires having either the council accept the proposal or having a public vote on if the proposal should be accepted and then requires a second vote on the actual issue) with a simple up or down vote. I like the simplification but I don't like raising the threshold. It means that only people with a lot of money to pay a lot of signature gatherers have any hope of getting an issue on the ballot. Lots of folks made the argument that the King County charter is like a constitution and should be hard to change. I don't buy that. Constitutions get their power by being rare and brief. A federal and state constitution is, in my opinion, quite enough, I believe that the county can be run by normal laws subject to normal modification.

King County Charter Amendment No. 8 – No

This initiative would make the King County executive, council and districting committee members non-partisan positions. This sounds nice in theory, after all, can't we all just get along? But the reality is that nobody can seriously run for office in our current electoral environment for an office in King County without serious cash and that almost always means that some party is behind the candidate. So the only real effect of this amendment is to let Republicans hide their affiliation. It will do nothing to reduce party's place in politics because the parties will still be there, they will just be able to hide themselves. This amendment seems like a bad idea. This is especially the case given that no one seems to have any real proof of party bickering on the council and that with Washington's top 2 primary system now approved by the U.S. Supreme Court each party now has to run reasonable candidates instead of lunatics playing to the hardest of the hard core base. Nevertheless I must admit that I could see myself eventually changing my mind in regards to future amendments under the heading of removing parties from politics all together but for now, as with King County Charter Amendment No. 1, I think the true motivation for this Amendment is more about allowing the Republicans to hide themselves than getting parties out of politics. So I'm voting no.

Sound Transit – Proposition No. 1 – No

A year ago we had another proposition 1 with the same price tag, $18 billion. It seems like that's some kind of magic number. But this time it's all mass transit (light rail and buses) and no extra roads. Which is a good thing given that, as I said above, building roads for cars doesn't reduce traffic. However $12.1 billion of the funding is to go to light rail, and we should probably triple or quadruple that figure to get anything like the real bill after the inevitable cost overruns. Furthermore most of the rail won't even start to be available until 2020 providing thus the bulk of the spending does nothing to help the situation right now. But what adds insult to injury is that all this money spent so far into the future will seem to make no substantive impact on the number of people using mass transit. We would literally be spending the money for basically nothing. Meanwhile the proposition will increase the sales tax in King County by 0.5% pushing total sales tax rates to 10% in many places. Sales Tax is pretty much the most regressive form of taxation around. We are basically sticking it to the poor, providing no substantive benefit for mass transit and enriching whole legions of contractors. From what I can tell this bill is too much for too little. If you want my vote for a transit plan the first place to start is with lots of buses running on dedicated bus lanes. This plan isn't that, nor does it seem to be a reasonable alternative to it, so I'm not voting for it.

Barack Obama/Joe Biden

The question of who to vote for is tearing me apart. By rights I should be a reflexive Obama voter but to be blunt I just don't believe that Barack Obama will make a good president. It's not just his lack of anything that I would think of as being substantive enough, especially in the way of executive experience, to justify him running for president. Rather it is his numerous failures to show strength of character and leadership during the time he has been campaigning.

My first disappointment with Obama was when he opted out of federal campaign financing. His excuses for doing so were less than convincing. Obama has repeatedly come out publicly in support of government financing for campaigns (something I'm not a big fan of, but that's a separate issue), to have him then reject that funding and come up with less than reasonable excuses is, in my opinion, at best a failure of leadership and at worst a failure of character.

Next up on my list was the telecom immunity fiasco. The government broke the law and the telcos helped them do it by illegally wiretapping American's phones. Then, just to prove that the law really is meaningless, the FISA "reform" bill put to Congress gave teleco's retroactive immunity for their illegal actions. Obama spoke in support of the FISA bill but then made what I feel was a futile political gesture by voting for an amendment to the FISA bill that would remove the immunity. An amendment that went down in flames. Voting positions in the Senate are no secret and lopsided votes like this one are easily predictable. I am convinced that Obama knew when he voted to support the bill that he was approving immunity and the amendment was nothing more than political theater. And what makes it all worse is that Obama himself had said that immunity was such a big deal that he was willing to filibuster attempts to provide it. Obama's attempts to invoke national security as a basis for voting for this bill only further demonstrated how either calculating or clueless (I don't claim to know which) he is.

But finally there is the mortgage disaster and the damage this has done to our economy. Here was a chance for Obama to really show leadership. Instead he became a knee jerk apologist for the massive bail out without bothering to give any decent explanations for why it was necessary and instead just larding it with more pork to make sure it went down Congress's gullet. This was a massive failure of leadership.

What I have seen of Mr. Obama leads me to believe that he is just another political operator who will be mindlessly driven by the polls and so in the end will be just as much a tool of the existing power structure as McCain. In the end I don't think there will be any substantive difference between a McCain or Obama presidency other than in the crucial area of Supreme Court justices. But even there the very fact that the Congress has ceded some much of its power that the Supreme Court has become a defacto legislature demonstrates just how damaged our political system is. We need real change, real reform and I don't believe Obama will provide even the shadow of reform.

John McCain/Sarah Palin

From abortion to Iraq to embracing the most extreme wing of the Christian right there is simply no possible way I could vote for John McCain. And that was before he made the decision to put a corruption riddled governor of a welfare state as his running mate. Given his health that alone would be enough to ensure I won't vote for him.

Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez

There is a long list of things that I agree with Ralph Nader on. He is pro-choice. Pro gay rights. He wants to finally get rid of the horrible legal 'innovation' of treating corporations as people. He is against the death penalty. He is against the drug war. His environmental record is amongst the best and his positions on consumer rights and protection are the gold standard. Where there is the most daylight between my belief's and Mr. Naders is in the area of globalization and free trade. But even there I do have respect for his positions and can't say that I am untroubled by the issues he raises. I still have the exact same reservations about Nader that I had in 2004. But I have to pick a candidate from those available to me and of those available Mr. Nader is the one who I think will do the best job as President of the United States. Therefore he gets my vote.

Gloria La Riva/Eugene Puryear

I am not a socialist and I really don't want to see the economy nationalized so I will not be voting for these folks.

James E. Harris/Alyson Kennedy

I'm still not a socialist.

Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root

Mr. Barr is against freedom of choice, was an author of the 'defense of marriage act', voted against gay adoptions, supports racism (e.g. affirmative action), supported the anti-flag desecration amendment, is a strong supporter of the death penalty, against needle exchanges, supports a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools, supports drilling anywhere in the US we can find oil and against the Kyoto protocol as well as for repealing the gas tax, wants to withdraw from the WTO, against just about any form of gun control, against right to die, voted for the patriot act (although now he claims to regret that), wants English to be the official US language, wants to eliminate income tax and payroll tax and replace with a massively regressive national sales tax, wants to reduce capital gains and get rid of estate tax and was against the invasion of Kosovo. That's more than enough for me to not vote for him. That having been said he does have some views I like. He wants a balanced budget amendment, a line item veto, legalize Marijuana, supports school vouchers and is against our insane farm support system. But that isn't enough to offset our disagreements so I won't be voting for him.

Chuck Bladwin/Darrell L. Castle

Their Constitution Party's Platform provides a nice summary of why I won't be voting for these two.

Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente

McKinney's hatred for Israel disqualifies her for my vote. Not only does she accuse Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians (Green Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire Feb 3, 2008) she also supported sending American representatives to the UN's Durban conference on racism (she was a signatory to the Congressional Black Caucus's statement supporting American attendance) which was nothing more than an Israeli bashing farce. She also supports racism (known as affirmative action) as well as reparations for slavery. She is also a strong opponent of school vouchers as well as just about every international trade agreement of the last decade or so. She also voted against invading Kosovo as well as Afghanistan. That all having been said I must admit that there are numerous issues where I agree with Ms. McKinney. She has been a strong supporter of choice, privacy, civil rights, restricting our foreign entanglements, ending the death penalty, ending the 'war on drugs', preventing oil drilling in the US, raising CAFE standards, supporting Kyoto and so on. But on balance I find I have more things in common with Mr. Nader than Ms. McKinney so Mr. Nader will get my vote.

• United States Representative – Congressional District No. 1 – Jay Inslee

• Governor – Christine Gregoire

• Lieutenant Governor – Marcia McCraw

• Secretary of State – Jason Osgood

• State Treasurer – Allan Martin

• State Auditor – Brian Sonntag

• Attorney General – Rob McKenna

• Commissioner of Public Lands – Peter J. Goldmark

• Superintendent of Public Instruction – Randy Dorn

• Insurance Commissioner – Mike Kreidler

• State Representative – Legislative Dist No. 45 – Position 1 – Roger Goodman

• State Representative – Legislative Dist No. 45 – Position 2 – Larry Springer

• State Supreme Court – Justices of the Supreme Court – Position 3 – Mary Fairhurst

• State Supreme Court – Justices of the Supreme Court – Position 4 – Charles W. Johnson

• State Supreme Court – Justices of the Supreme Court – Position 7 – Debra L. Stephens

• Court of Appeals, Division No. 1 – District No. 1 – Judge Position 5 – Lau, Linda

• Court of Appeals, Division No. 1 – District No. 1 – Judge Position 6 – Ann Schindler

• Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 1 – Tim Bradshaw

• Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 10 – Regina S. Cahan

• Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 22 – Julia Garratt

• Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 26 – Laura Gene Middaugh

• Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 37 – Jean Rietschel

• Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 53 – Mariane Spearman

• King County Initiative 26 and Council Proposed Alternative – Question 1 & 2 – No/Council-Proposed Alternative

United States Representative – Congressional District No. 1 – Jay Inslee

This is a rematch of the 11/7/2006 election. Ishmael's website is essentially content free, no change from last time. Inslee's website however has quite a bit to say. The analysis is really the same as in 2006. Even his voting record is more or less the same. I wish Inslee had a real opponent but it appears he does not so I'll vote for Inslee.

Governor – Christine Gregoire

• Dino Rossi – His website was reasonably informative. On healthcare he wants to let the 'market' work but I personally don't think markets work at all well for health insurance. Young people, quite reasonably, play the odds and don't generally get insurance depending on the public system to cover them in the case of medical disaster which means we the public are left holding the bill. Personally I think only mandatory insurance will work. So long as the state is the de-facto provider of medical care of last resort we have no choice but to get costs covered. His attacks on Christine Gregoire didn't really get much traction with me other than she spent way too much money and completely dropped the ball on the Alaskan Way Viaduct and 520 bridge replacement. His transportation proposals boil down to 'build more roads'. We know that doesn't work, there is infinite demand for roads. I want to see real leadership in taking us to a transportation solution that doesn't drown us in concrete and cars. On education his plan seems to boil down to 'break the teacher's union' which is totally fine with me. But I'd like to see real leadership – school vouchers. Let's break the monopoly! On crime he wants to throw more people in jail and build more jails to hold them, on that alone I absolutely will not vote for Dino Rossi. America already imprisons more people in total and per capita than any nation on earth, the last thing we need is more prisons and prisoners.

• Will Baker – Apparently the political system is out to get Will Baker. That's unfortunate, so I'll help him by not voting for him so the political system won't be interested in him anymore.

• Christine Gregoire – Unfortunately her website is content free. I find it painful to vote for Ms. Gregoire given her less than impressive record in office (see my entry on Dino Rossi) and her disdain for actually sharing what she is going to do with those who are supposed to elect her. But of all the candidates she is the least offensive. It's really too bad that Dino Rossi is so far off to the right.

• Duff Badgley – I don't like one issue candidates. If he wants to be governor he needs to explain how he'll do the job.

• John W. Aiken, Jr. – Hum… socialism for energy control? Um… no.

• Christian Pierre Joubert – If you want to be taken seriously as a candidate how about having a website that isn't scary? Oh and apparently alternative medicine will solve all of our problems. Next.

• Christopher A. Tudo – Other than the current system is broken, based on his website, I can't figure out what Mr. Tudo actually wants to do as governor. This really bums me out because Mr. Tudo has actual executive experience and so could have potentially have been a viable alternative to the usual suspects.

• Javier O. Lopez – "Air Engine", enough said.

Lieutenant Governor – Marcia McCraw

Other than the ability to break tie votes in the Senate the Lieutenant Governor's only job is to hope the Governor becomes incapacitated. Given the relative irrelevance of the position I'm not going to work too hard picking a candidate.

• Brad Owen – Wow, he can't even bother to put up a website to communicate his views to his constituency. Yes, I know he has a state website but I'm talking about a campaign site. If he can't bother to communicate then I can't bother to vote for him.

• Marcia McCraw – Her website might be content free but at least it's pretty. I guess she wins by default.

• Arlene A. Peck – G-d will apparently show her the way. Um… no.

• Jim Wiest – I'm guessing he is running to advertise his position on homelessness but in that case shouldn't his website at least be up?

• Randel Bell – No picture, no candidate statement, yum. Next.

Secretary of State – Jason Osgood

The key thing I think about in regards to the secretary of state is voting. King County will soon go to an all mail voting system which opens wide vistas for voter fraud and intimidation. With mail in votes all sorts of fraud become much more tractable since the person trying to influence the vote (through money or intimidation) can confirm if their target voted as desired. The centralized nature of mail voting also makes government malfeasance much easier.

• Sam Reed – One of his touted benefits in office is making people show ID when voting. Note, there is absolutely no evidence that any significant number of people bothered to vote with fake ID and of could mail based voting makes voting by the wrong people trivial.

• Mark Greene – I read his website but I still can't figure out what he would actually do that Sam Reed isn't already doing.

• Jason Osgood – He really doesn't like bar codes on ballots (damn straight), is against mail voting (yee ha!) and the stranger hates him (o.k. I don't know if that matters but I was on a roll). He gets my vote.

• Marilyn Montgomery – Her website talks about things that her party wants to do that have nothing to do with being the Secretary of State. She does point out serious issues with the last Gubernatorial election but not what she would do about them.

State Treasurer – Allan Martin

• Allan Martin – Is there a law somewhere that says candidate websites must be content free? I don't see a big difference between the three candidates and Mr. Martin already has experience as the Deputy Treasurer. I don't normally view incumbency as a benefit but this elected position seems more technical than most. Without the other candidates giving me reasons to vote otherwise, and so far they have not, I'll go with the person with the experience.

• Jim McIntire – I voted against McIntire in 2004, mostly because he likes to spend money (appropriate I suppose for a state treasurer), raise taxes and supported a state income tax. Oh and his website is content free.

• ChangMook Sohn – He doesn't say much about what he will do but there is a lot of data about him and what he has done. The past is interesting but I would like some insight into the future.

State Auditor – Brian Sonntag

• Brian Sonntag – I voted for him last time but this time he doesn't seem to even have a website?!? Sigh… I hate having to vote for people by default.

• Glenn Freeman – His argument for electing him seems to come down to the fact that he is not an incumbent and that he is not from the party in power. I have to admit that Mr. Freeman's argument that someone shouldn't be state auditor for 15 years does resonate with me. He also has professional experience as an auditor working for a large commercial organization. That all having been said this guy used to head the constitution party in Washington state. This is a party whose core principles include "The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law under the authority of Jesus Christ, to be administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens." This is also somehow who says the state auditor position should be non partisan but didn't take advantage of the option to declare a party affiliation. Next.

• Richard J. McEntee – Again no website?!?!?! He brings up some interesting points in his candidate statement but then doesn't bother to have a website so I can follow up on them.

Attorney General – Rob McKenna

• John Ladenburg – His top issue is apparently identify theft over which his website provides no concrete proposals. Not a good start. Next is the environment and here he talks about his past record but says nothing about what he wants to do in the future. He mumbles all the right words on civil rights but again, no plans. Although his point that Mr. McKenna shouldn't have his name/photo showing up in public service announcements during an election year sound right on. Except it turns out that the ads are not paid for by the state, Comcast paid for them and they involved McGruff the crime dog talking about identity theft, an issue McKenna has been working on for years. Hum…

• Rob McKenna – Mr. McKenna's first issue is apparently Meth, he touts the various works he has done that he attributes to causing the price of Meth to double and the number of labs to fall by 90% since 2001. But he doesn't talk about any future action. His next issue is identity theft but his proposed solutions, like shredding trash, seem to be keyed to advertising not effectiveness. From all the data I have seen a tiny proportion of identity thefts occur through dumpster diving (although I admit to being a regular shredder). His next issue is Sex Predators, a problem that it isn't clear is pervasive enough compared to crimes like domestic abuse to deserve the attention it gets. Again Mr. McKenna seems more interested in publicity than results. At the bottom of his list is domestic violence. But I have to give him credit, this critical issue didn't even show up on Mr. Ladenburg's list of issues. Mr. McKenna seems like a publicity seeking phony but his record is actually quite real and Mr. Ladenburg has thrown mud (over both identity theft and the public service ads) but doesn't seem to have anything concrete to say. So I am going with Mr. McKenna.

Commissioner of Public Lands – Peter J. Goldmark

• Peter J. Goldmark – Mr. Goldmark waves his hands around a number of issues such as lands sales and accuses Mr. Sutherland of not believing in global warming and wanting to cut 30% of our forests without providing any references. In the end it comes down to money. From what I can tell a column of university folks, an entire division of environmentalists and an army of retired people financially back Goldmark while the timber companies financially back Sutherland. Given the nature of the position that pretty much locks it for Goldmark.

• Doug Sutherland – Wow, his website is 100% content free. Seriously. It literally says, nothing. Amazing.

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Randy Dorn

• John Patterson Blair – Near as I can tell the last time this guy taught anyone was in the 70s and is now in the HVAC business. His basic idea is to create an open education system where anyone (with proper accreditation and oversight) can form schools and receive student money but in return they can only take money from the public school system (e.g. no additional money beyond what the state provides) and must fill at least 80% of their openings on an open enrollment basis. The last criterion has me worried but isn't a show stopper. I am unconvinced that Mr. Blair is a serious candidate in the sense that he has gone beyond a bit of content on his website and showing up for the odd meeting. Ideas are good but candidates need to also show they are prepared for the position. My suspicion is that if Mr. Blair did somehow get elected the result would be a mess.

• Don Hansler – No website? His candidate statement has some interesting issues but to learn more you're supposed to e-mail him for his 3 page candidate statement. Um… no. Sorry, in the age of the Internet I expect you to spend 10 minutes, set up a free website and put up interesting information. Next.

• Randy Dorn – Formerly the head of a union for school support personnel he is now supported by Seattle's teacher's union. So right off he isn't heading in a direction that I like. I believe that teacher's unions and their protection of tenure based teaching at all costs and fight against school vouchers is part of the problem, not the solution. Nevertheless I believe the WASL has been a complete disaster and Mr. Dorn is unlikely to do worse than Ms. Bergeson and with his focus on cleaning up some of the looniness with Math in Washington I end up, regretfully, voting for Mr. Dorn. It's too bad Mr. Blair wasn't a more serious candidate.

• David Blomstrom – Hugo Chavez, evil privatized schools and terrorists and that's just his candidate statement. Next.

• Enid Duncan – Although not listed in the voter's guide Ms. Duncan does have a website. Having read it the only message seemed to be "WASL Bad, Parents Good." It's not that I disagree, but a bit more detail seems called for.

• Teresa Bergeson – With a war chest of $144,838.36 (her nearest competitor, Mr. Dorn, has $91,162), maybe she doesn't feel like she has to explain herself because her website is content free. Note, btw, that she was formerly the head of Washington state's teacher's union although now the union supports Randy Dorn. In any case this is the woman who gave us the disaster that has been the WASL.

Insurance Commissioner – Mike Kreidler

• Mike Kreidler – His plan for providing universal catastrophic coverage is a good idea at its heart. The reality is that when someone has a major health episode if they don't have insurance then the state picks up the tab. By providing catastrophic coverage and charging everyone for it via payroll taxes we make sure everyone, including the future sick, pay in. Yes, richer folks will pay more of the tax than poorer folks for the same coverage but that is happening already so it doesn't make the situation any worse. I also really like the insurance commissioner's website and have even sent in fan mail (seriously), because it made my life so much easier in buying insurance. Over all I'm happy to vote for Mr. Kreidler.

• John R. Adams – His website, much like his candidate statement, is content free.

• Curtis Fackler – Mr. Fackler has been an insurance agent, e.g. he sells insurance. Although, to be fair, he was an independent. Still, that is more than a little close to the insurance industry. Still, I went to his website with a reasonably open mind and he does say one or two interesting things but his website simply can't compete with Mr. Kreidler's in terms of detail. While Mr. Kreidler draws out in detail what he will do, Mr. Fackler throws out one or two brush strokes. Also, Mr. Fackler's plan to provide universal catastrophic coverage for healthcare problems over $100,000 seems a bit useless compared to Mr. Kreidler's plan to cover everything $10,000 and above. I can see many people falling into the $90,000 hole between the two plans to the detriment of state finances.

State Representative – Legislative Dist No. 45 – Position 1 – Roger Goodman

• Roger Goodman – Based on his statement to the muni league his focus is on drug abuse (where he wants to get people out of the courts), drunk driving (where he drove a bill to require breathalizers on cars for certain folks) and better access to the legal system. His website paints Mr. Goodman as a standard off the shelf liberal. Hug a tree, reform our transport programs, figure out (in some completely undefined way) how to insure people and stop throwing everyone in jail. Works for me. He gets my vote.

• Toby Nixon – His muni league statement wasn't very informative but his website was chock a block with his view. Which is how it should be. But then again I think Toby has to ask himself "How long should someone have to spend on my website to get an idea of what I believe?" I think Toby should have designed a summary section on his website that would take about 20 minutes to read end-to-end and then provided links to more in-depth data on specific issues. I did however make it through his issues page (oy, was it long) and basically he is a no tax and spend Republican. He doesn't want to raise taxes but he wants to spend on schools and on roads. In neither case does he explain where the cash is coming from. I strongly disagree with Toby on the issue of roads in particular. Building more roads will just result in more cars and put us right back where we started. We need a different solution. Toby also has a fixation on the non-existent crime of voter fraud. Apparently hordes of people are voting with illegal identification even though exactly no evidence exists to prove or even imply that people are illegal voting as someone other than themselves on any significant scale. Where evidence does exist of fraudulent elections it is in government agencies illegally striking voters off the voting roles and the Republican party illegally using voter challenges to harass and remove legal voters. I have had a number of e-mail exchanges with Toby (both for personal and political reasons) and if he ran against Larry Springer I'd probably vote for him. But in the end I elect my representatives based on how close their views are to mine and while I share much in common with Toby I believe on balance my views are closer to Mr. Goodman's.

State Representative – Legislative Dist No. 45 – Position 2 – Larry Springer

• Larry Springer – Mr. Springer continues his tradition of having a nearly content free website but his opponent is literally absent from the Web.

• Kevin Haistings – I can't even find his website! He is obviously not a serious candidate. In fact, unlike Mr. Springer who got an 'outstanding' from the Muni league, Mr. Hastings didn't even fill in the questionnaire.

State Supreme Court – Justices of the Supreme Court – Position 3 – Mary Fairhurst

I don't have enough energy left to do a full in-depth investigation of judges. In fact I think electing judges is frightening. So instead my approach is going to be to read their candidate statements and check out votingforjudges.org. Only if something looks weird will I investigate further.

State Supreme Court – Justices of the Supreme Court – Position 4 – Charles W. Johnson

State Supreme Court – Justices of the Supreme Court – Position 7 – Debra L. Stephens

Court of Appeals, Division No. 1 – District No. 1 – Judge Position 5 – Lau, Linda

Court of Appeals, Division No. 1 – District No. 1 – Judge Position 6 – Ann Schindler

Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 1 – Tim Bradshaw

Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 10 – Regina Cahan

Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 22 – Julia Garratt

This is a great example of why voting for Judges is a bad idea. How the heck am I supposed to choose between these three qualified and much lauded candidates? It's not like their websites are useful or the newspaper articles about them are useful either. And although I think judges can say a lot about what they believe tradition is that they are supposed to keep quiet so as to not prejudice their decisions on future cases. Arg! Looking at the ratings it comes down to Julia Garratt and Holly Hill and I'm not at all happy with how much money Ms. Hill has dumped into her campaign. So I'll go with Julia Garratt but I don't pretend that is a good way to choose.

Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 26 – Laura Gene Middaugh

Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 37 – Jean Rietschel

Superior Court – Judges of the Superior Court – Position 53 – Mariane Spearman

King County Initiative 26 and Council Proposed Alternative – Question 1 & 2 – No/Council-Proposed Alternative

This initiative would make most council races non-partisan. This is a completely meaningless term since party affiliation is a matter of belief not declaration. By declaring a race to be non-partisan all we do is let people hide who they affiliate with (if anyone). The Stranger called this one cold but in its own way so does The Seattle Times who slips into the end of its article supporting the initiative basically the same contention that the Stranger makes – that initiative 26 is all about allowing Republicans to hide their affiliation in a largely Democratic state. Anyone who has paid attention to my political blog entries (and who are you anyway?) knows that I don't really care all that much about Democrat versus Republican (the differences tend to be largely meaningless anyway) but I don't like games and this initiative is just that, a game. I'm voting no.

This isn't an election, it's a denial of service attack! The whole point of representative democracy is that citizens have neither the time nor the background to make detailed choices about how the day to day activities of government are to be run. But in this election we am being drowned in no less than 9 different measures in addition to 14 different elected offices of which only 3 appeared on the primary. This is just nuts! The only consequence of dumping this many issues and elected offices on the citizenry is to so overload the citizenry that they either don't bother to vote or vote blindly.

• Initiative 960 – Yes

• Referendum Measure 67 – Approved

• Senate Joint Resolution 8206 – Rejected

• Senate Joint Resolution 8212 – Rejected

• House Joint Resolution 4204 – Rejected

• House Joint Resolution 4215 – Rejected

• King County Prosecuting Attorney – Bill Sherman

• King County Assessor – Scott Noble

• Port of Seattle – Commissioner – Position No. 2 – Bob Edwards

• Port of Seattle – Commissioner – Position No. 5 – Alec Fisken

• City of Redmond – Mayor – John Marchione

• City of Redmond – Council Position 1 – Hank Myers

• City of Redmond – Council Position 3 – Dayle (Hank) Margeson

• City of Redmond – Council Position 5 – Richard Cole

• City of Redmond – Council Position 7 – David Carson

• Lake Washington School District No. 414 – Director District 1 – Jackie Pendergrass

• Lake Washington School District No. 414 – Director District 2 – Chris Carlson

• Lake Washington School District No. 414 – Director District 5 – Ravi Shahani

• Public Hospital District No. 4 – Commissioner – Rebecca Hirt

• Public Hospital District No. 5 – Commissioner – Jeanette Greenfield

• King County Initiative 25 – Yes

• King County Proposition No. 1 – Medic One – Approved

• Sound Transit Proposition No. 1 – No

Initiative 960 – Yes

The purpose of this initiative as far as I can tell is to make the state legislature actually honor Initiative 601 from 1993 that required a 2/3s margin on votes to increase taxes. Since then the legislature has apparently used every trick in the book to essentially ignore Initiative 601. What I-960 will do is require that any time the legislature raises taxes above the pre-approved spending limit then the legislative action won't take affect until the next general election when the people have to vote on the tax increase. The way the legislature can get around this is by declaring an emergency. Apparently this is a favorite trick of the legislature. To deal with this I-960 requires that any time the legislature declares an emergency an initiative has to be placed on the next ballot giving the voters an advisory vote on the emergency tax raise. The initiative would also require that any increase in fees must be approved by the legislature. I think that the emergency clause is a bit of showman ship and I would prefer that instead the initiative just mandate that a list be published of all bills with an 'emergency' clause to make it easy for citizens to see what their legislators are doing. I am also worried about the practical affects of requiring the legislature to approve every fee increase from just about every state agency. But I really like the idea of requiring a referendum when the legislature exceeds the spending cap and I can live with the rest to get it.

Much thanks to Toby Nixon who pointed out that I misread the text for I-960 and set me straight about what it really does.

Referendum Measure 67 – Approved

The state legislature passed a law that says that consumers can sue insurance companies in court if the insurance companies do not promptly pay out claims and that consumers can get up to triple damages if they can show the insurance company had no basis for denying the claim. Insurance companies with the highest rate of customer complaints have plowed millions into getting a referendum to have the bill overturned. From what I can tell consumers have always had the right to sue their insurers if the insurer don't pay up, what this bill changed was the inclusion of punitive damages. There is nothing like 'triple damages' to focus the mind. The triple damages also make cases that litigants could not otherwise afford to prosecute possible since it provides a big enough win to be worth a lawyer's time. To me it is simple fairness that if a company acts in bad faith then it will be punished, not just made to honor its original agreement. Will this lead to frivolous lawsuits? That is something for our courts to decide. But putting Washington in line with just about every other state in the union that allows punitive damages in these cases makes sense to me. I'm voting Approved.

Senate Joint Resolution 8206 – Rejected

This resolution creates, by modifying our state constitution, a 'rainy day' fund into which 1% of state revenues (with lots of exceptions) must be placed and can only be withdrawn under a variety of supposed 'extreme' circumstances typically requiring a 60% vote of the legislature. I sincerely doubt this rainy day fund will stay inviolate for long, especially as it keeps on growing. From initiatives to a legislature that loves to declare everything an emergency (remember the sports stadium?) I'm sure the fund will be raided. But let's assume the funds will truly be inviolate. In that case the question is – who should be sitting on the citizen's money, the citizens or the government? If 1% of revenue can be safely put into a savings fund and not used for immediate spending then this argues that the government is taxing us too much by the sum of 1% of currently collected taxes. Yes, when there are down times the government will either have to cut services or raise taxes or raise bonds. Given how inevitable this is citizens need to be prepared by having their own equivalent of the 1% fund to pay for those taxes. But I would much rather leave that money in the hands of the people to spend or invest as they like rather than in the hands of the government. So I'm rejecting this constitutional amendment.

Senate Joint Resolution 8212 – Rejected

This resolution would modify the state constitution to allow prisons to contract out inmate labor to private companies. While it is tempting to argue that inmates should have to pay while they serve time this is a slippery slope that, in truth, we are already pretty far down. As it is American now incarcerates a larger portion of its population than any other country on earth. It is my belief that at least some part of the trend of throwing our citizenry in jail to rot is the lobbying by the private/public prison industry to make everything a crime so as to generate business for themselves. This constitutional amendment would now throw in a whole new population of companies who would be making money off the prison industry and would thus add their voice and money to throwing even more people in jail. I have no desire to bulk up the prison industry any more and am therefore rejecting this measure.

House Joint Resolution 4204 – Rejected

This resolution would modify the state constitution to allow for local property tax increases above the 1% general limit to pass on a simple majority rather than the currently required super majority. I view taxes in general as being a very serious (but, alas, unavoidable) imposition on our freedom to do with our money whatever we want. I therefore like the idea that there is a high bar to raising taxes. I think this is appropriate. Contrary to some of the material I read about 4204 democracy is not mob rule. Just because the majority of people favor some course of action that does not create a requirement that the action be taken. It is perfectly fine for society to agree that some actions are sufficiently damaging that it should take a higher bar before they can be undertaken. I believe raising taxes is one of them and I especially believe this applies to property taxes which create so much uncertainty in one's spending. There are many things a resident can do to reasonably predict their future tax load. They can decide how much to work, how much to spend, how much to invest, etc. But once someone has bought a house, since housing prices are so unpredictable, it is very difficult to reasonably forecast one's future property tax burden. Even worse if a resident has a temporary cash flow problem the usual options for reducing taxes (e.g. buy less, invest in tax exempt assets, etc.) aren't available, property taxes have to be paid. I believe that property taxes are useful but they are also dangerous and so a high bar to raising them makes sense to me. I am therefore rejecting this resolution.

House Joint Resolution 4215 – Rejected

The state has a variety of educational funds which are generally bared from investing in private stocks or private bonds by the state constitution. Constitutional amendments were made in 1966 that allowed some of the funds to invest in private stocks and bonds but not all. This proposal would expand the exception to cover all state educational funds. I do not like the idea of state entities owning private stocks or bonds. It gives the state a strong incentive to intervene in the proper working of the markets. If you want to strike fear into the hearts of any company with public stock just say "CalPERS". This is the California Public Employees' Retirement System, it runs pensions for California state employees, and with $230 Billion in investable assets it is one of the biggest investors in the country. Do we really want a state run entity telling private entities how they should run their business for profit? Because CalPERS is what's known as an 'active investor' (normally a good thing, btw) and thus does make its views known to private companies and because of its size it gets listened to. Having the state both be a regulator of and investor in the private markets is a horrendous conflict of interest and we need to prevent it. In addition giving the state the ability to invest in private stocks and bonds gives a variety of companies an incentive to lobby the state to invest in their assets over others. The state needs to be an honest broker, not a partisan player. We should be looking to roll back the exemptions allowing Washington State to invest in private bonds or stocks, not extending them. I am therefore rejecting this proposal.

King County Prosecuting Attorney – Bill Sherman

• Bill Sherman – His voter pamphlet entry and Muni League questionnaire both play up the typical fear angles but I don't see any real substantive content. Also the prosecute one case a year thing feels really gimmicky to me. Most of his Muni questionnaire was really just heart string pulling and his website is pretty much content free. Truth be told I'm pretty much reflexively ready to vote against a Republican for any law enforcement position as a consequence of the Republican party's behavior in shredding our rights since George W. Bush became president. A few mentions of civil rights and some nice reasonable commentary and I would have voted for Mr. Sherman. But alas he didn't seem able to pull it off. Yes, I'm going to vote for him, but truth be told I'm not so much voting for Mr. Sherman as against George W. Bush. Mr. Satterberg could have stopped me if his website had shown any cognizance of civil liberties issues but he didn't. Throw in the questions caused by Mr. Satterberg's Church and voting actions and I end up voting for Mr. Sherman by default but I can't say I'm ecstatic about it.

• Dan Satterberg – I was reading his Muni League questionnaire which identified three things as his proudest achievements, the first was the drug courts (which seem like a good thing), the kids court (another good thing) and then updating animal cruelty laws. While I certainly want strong laws against animal cruelty there seems to be something decidedly calculated by identifying updated animal cruelty laws as one of his greatest accomplishments in 17 years in office. More than anything else it shows how generally content free his answers appear to be to me although his site managed to give slightly more information than Mr. Sherman's the information was mostly about past accomplishments rather than general ideas and proposed future actions. Mr. Satterberg also sat on the archbishop's council to set policy for handling complaints of misconduct in the church and then later refused to open church files. I have no idea if anything actually wrong happened but by sitting on that board Mr. Satterberg created a compelling appearance of conflict of interest. Then there was the issue of Mr. Satterberg's behavior regarding the vote recount. Lots of questions, not many answers.

King County Assessor – Scott Noble

• Scott Noble – Mr. Noble by all accounts seems to be a solid assessor who has done an outstanding job for many years. I can't find any compelling reason to replace him.

• Jim Nobles – Mr. Nobles apparently didn't have time to fill out his muni survey which is unfortunate as I find it a useful source of data. His website was also, in my opinion, content free.

Port of Seattle – Commissioner – Position No. 2 – Bob Edwards

See my previous article for details on the candidates. My preferred candidate Thom McCann didn't make it to the general election. My clear second choice was Mr. Edwards.

Port of Seattle – Commissioner – Position No. 5 – Alec Fisken

He was my choice in the primary as well.

City of Redmond – Mayor – John Marchione

He was my choice in the primary as well.

City of Redmond – Council Position 1 – Hank Myers

He is running unopposed.

City of Redmond – Council Position 3 – Dayle (Hank) Margeson

• Brian Conlin – I very much like his upbeat attitude toward Redmond. But unfortunately his voter pamphlet and muni entries were content free and his website was only marginally better. On his website he makes it clear that he wants to concentrate business in Overlake and downtown Redmond (seems reasonable) and that he wants better transportation options (although no details) and he wants more money from the county trough. But this all sounds like goodness and sunshine. Redmond isn't that big a place and most of our issues are well known so it shouldn't be too hard for him to come up with specifics.

• Dayle (Hank) Margeson – Yes, the muni league rated him higher than Mr. Conlin and that does give him a bonus point. But I can't see much difference between Messrs. Conlin and Margeson's views. Margeson's website was a bit more informative than Mr. Conlin's but not by much and they both seem to say a lot of the same things. So it's hard to make a meaningful choice but over all I liked the fact that Mr. Margeson's answers to the muni league questionnaire were more thorough and that his website gave me a least a tiny bit more insight into what he believes. So I will go with Mr. Margeson.

City of Redmond – Council Position 5 – Richard Cole

• Michallea Schuelke – For whatever reason Ms. Schuelke did not fill out the Muni form. Which may go some way to explaining why the Muni League gave her a rating of adequate while her opponent got a rating of Very Good. Her main point seems to be that she isn't her competitor, that is, she hasn't been on the council since 1988 and unlike her competitor she would rather raise taxes on businesses than people. If Ms. Schuelke had provided more hard data about what she wants to do I might have gone with her but as it is she is only slightly less mysterious than Mr. Cole.

• Richard Cole – His muni questionnaire as well as his website are basically content free. Ms. Schuelke actually managed to say something, even if it was mostly putting herself in opposition to her opponent. But I'll have to take Ms. Schuelke's word for what her opponent wants to do because he says essentially nothing himself. I can't say that I'm thrilled that Mr. Cole has had 5 consecutive terms on the council. Experience is great but this is getting to be ridiculous. How can someone have been in public service for so long and be such a cipher? I tried doing searches about him on the net but that didn't turn up much. His main claim to re-election is that he helped to put in place the new city planning process and he would now like to execute it. In the end I am voting for Mr. Cole but mostly because he is Marchione's right hand man and will need him to push through his agenda. Not a great reason, I know.

City of Redmond – Council Position 7 – David Carson

• Brian Seitz – The muni league rated him very good but I honestly don't know why. His answers to the questions were banal. His main claim to election seems to be that he was a parks worker. The council is a serious job and the candidate needs experience in public service before claiming it, introducing WagEd to blogs doesn't quite cut it. His blog was a bit more interesting with some comments on transportation that caught my eye but mostly it was hand waving rather than details. I listened to his YouTube video (come on, you work for MS, use Silverlight Streaming!) and I honestly didn't hear him say anything.

• David Carson – Mr. Carson did not fill out his muni league form. His 'issues' tab is marked Under Construction. Um… the election is in two weeks or so, when exactly did he think he would get around to filling out that section? That having been said Mr. Carson has a history of civic activity and experience with government that makes me think he is more ready to handle the job than Mr. Seitz. So Mr. Carson gets my vote.

Lake Washington School District No. 414 – Director District 1 – Jackie Pendergrass

She is running unopposed.

Lake Washington School District No. 414 – Director District 2 – Chris Carlson

• Chris Carlson – Mr. Carlson's main point seems to be that he wants to spend more money on reducing class sizes and keep parents more informed of important changes like bus route alterations. He seems to play down his involvement with Where's the Math?, an organization trying to bring back basic math education. I looked over the Where's the Math? website and while it is a bit 'out there' a lot of what they said seemed, from my superficial review, to make sense.

• Matt Gregory – He doesn't seem to actually have a website. I think that is unconscionable for someone running for public office, especially in a wired up area like Washington State, to not have a website. The most I could find out about him was from a Seattle Times Article. Over all I think Mr. Carlson has more to say and more energy to say it with than Mr. Gregory so Mr. Carlson gets my vote.

Lake Washington School District No. 414 – Director District 5 – Ravi Shahani

He is running unopposed.

Public Hospital District No. 2 – Commissioner – Rebecca Hirt

She is running unopposed.

Public Hospital District No. 5 – Commissioner – Jeanette Greenfield

She is running unopposed.

King County Initiative 25 – Yes

This initiative proposes putting an initiative on next year's ballot to amend King County's charter to make the director of elections an elected instead of an appointed position. The 'two step' voting process is, I believe, due to the way that charter amendments are voted on. King County will soon switch to an all mail ballot. A system absolutely designed to guarantee corruption. With a mandatory mail in ballot system only a completely incompetent executive would not twist the vote since it would be so painless easy with essentially no real chance of being caught. I honestly don't know if I will even bother voting once mandatory mail in ballots come in force in King County, what's the point? This initiative is one last, desperate chance to maybe stop this travesty by starting the process to put an independent voice into the election process. As much as I abhor the thought of having yet another elected position that must be preferable to having no meaningful vote at all.

King County Proposition No. 1 – Medic One – Approved

This proposition would increase the Medic One dedicated property tax from $0.25/$1000 assessed value to $0.3/$1000 assessed value. What's the justification for increasing the tax? Beats me. Folks like Yes on Medic One mention something about inflation and an increasingly older population but no figures of any kind are offered to prove these changes require an increase in the tax. I generally don't like special purpose propositions since they limit flexibility but in some cases I suppose that limitation is a feature. I also really like the idea of Medic One where emergency response services are consistent across many areas and not just funded on a city by city basis. I believe that just as citizens have an obligation to the state around them the reverse also holds and the quality of emergency medical services once receives should be of an equally high standard everywhere. I just wish someone would provide convincing evidence that the tax really needs to be increased. Still, for lack of an alternative I'll vote to approve.

Sound Transit Proposition No. 1 – No

$18 Billion. That's the figure the proposition's own supporters admit this transit package will cost. That is how much is to be spent from a permanent increase of both sales and car taxes. In return we are supposed to get a coherent transit system except the plan doesn't address the Alaskan way viaduct and it only provides partial funding to turn the 520 into a six lane highway. In other words, this is just the down payment, more bills to come. Near as I can tell this proposal is really just a bargain between folks who want major extensions to the road network and folks who want light rail. The deal is to tie the two together and shove the whole thing down voter's throats. And keep in mind that this is all funded through sales/car taxes which are some of the most regressive taxes around. Putting the biggest burden of our transportation on our poorest citizens makes little sense. For me the bottom line is that this proposition is a gargantuan tax and spending spree that I sincerely doubt will product anything terribly useful. What I would propose is the creation of a super transit district with the power to come up with a full fledge regional plan whose funding consisted of redirecting existing funding rather than adding a completely new layer of funding on top of the existing system. In other words I support the idea of RTID (or some other multi-county single oversight agency) but not billions in new taxes to fund it. Fund it with our existing taxes, in other words, make hard choices. Don't just add billions on top of all our existing transport taxes. I found this article on the over all project and this editorial from Ron Sims to be particularly helpful in deciding to vote against this measure.

• Port of Seattle – Commissioner – Position No. 2 – Thom McCann

• Port of Seattle – Commissioner – Position No. 5 – Alec Fisken

• City of Redmond – Mayor – John Marchione

• King County – Proposition No. 1 – Yes

• King County – Proposition No. 2 – Yes

• City of Redmond – Proposition No. 1 – Yes

• City of Redmond – Proposition No. 2 – Yes

Port of Seattle – Commissioner – Position No. 2 – Thom McCann

The port commissioners run the port of Seattle an enormous multi-billion dollar state owned company that runs the Seattle ports, airports, etc. The position is supposedly part time and pays all of $6,000 a year.

• The-Anh Nguyen – His website doesn't seem to actually say anything about what he would do (although his voter pamphlet entry, towards the end, does mention a few things). But there wasn't enough here to make me comfortable voting for him.

• Gael Tarleton – Wow, I have to admit that her background, on paper at least, looks really impressive. The Pentagon, the CIA, helping SAIC (a military related contractor who does business with the port) get into Russia. But fundamentally I don't want someone with this kind of background running on the port. Yes, security is critical to the port but security experts can be hired. But in this time of security insanity with our civil rights being shredded left and right and with the airports in particular being the epicenter for much of this destruction I want a candidate who doesn't have conflicts of interest (including taking money (via employees) and holding stock in a company that does business with the port not to mention raising the most money of any candidate much of it from SAIC related people) and who is going to be focused on protecting citizens from government, not the other way around. I'm afraid I can't vote for Ms. Tarleton. One can fairly accuse me of bias, why should her background be held against her when it provides so many positive qualifications for running the port? And the truth is that if he campaign material addresses these issues directly along with her conflicts of interest I might have changed my mind. But she didn't even talk about it until reporters started asking questions.

• Wen Wu Lee – A candidate who cannot be bothered to post a candidate statement in reasonably fluent English (even if they need someone else to check it for them) isn't someone I can seriously consider voting for.

• Jack Block Jr. – Mr. Block's background as a longshoreman does worry me in the sense that it makes it difficult for me to believe that he can act in the interests of all citizens, not just the employees of the port. It also appears that Mr. Block is an employee of SSA Marine, a major customer of the port. His website doesn't address any of these issues. His Muni questionnaire however did provide some interesting background on him in terms of challenges he faced as a politician and how he handled them. But in the end I see too many conflicts of interest to feel comfortable voting for him.

• Bob Edwards – Mr. Edwards is the incumbent and seems to have a solid record. The main downsides noted against him are that he has taken donations from companies that do business with the port (SSA Marine) (although near as I can tell just about all the candidates have taken money from port related interests) and that he was somehow involved in a $340,000 severance package for former port CEO Mic Dinsmore. Personally I like the fact that he voted against increasing the Port's tax levy and I liked his answers to the Muni's questions. He seems like an extremely reasonable and effective port commissioner. On the other hand his actions around the Lora Lakes apartments looks like grand standing intended to garner attention before the election. So much for his consensus building ways. I think in the end I am more voting for Mr. McCann than against Mr. Edwards.

• Thom McCann – His position is that the port should be able to run without a tax subsidy, a position that certainly attracts my wallet. But all of his talk of family wage jobs worries me, I like my government small and I like job creation to come from the private sector. His experience as a former Microsoftie and restaurant owner doesn't really match Mr. Edwards or Ms. Tarleton's background and as a business owner who was apparently negatively affected by the port's actions he has his own conflicts of interest. Of all the candidates McCann at least stands for something I like, getting rid of the port tax and seems to have the smallest conflict of interest (e.g. according to the PDC he has taken very few contributions and none of those seem to involve any conflicts of interest).

Port of Seattle – Commissioner – Position No. 5 – Alec Fisken

• Bill Bryant – I really like his background in international trade and business but I don't like the fact that he supports the port tax levy. The port should fund itself, not suck money out of tax payers. On top of that he supports replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a bored tunnel, something I personally think will turn into a multi-billion dollar badly managed boondoggle. And just to add insult to injury Mr. Bryant is also apparently a long time donor and active supporter of the Republican party. Not a party I currently have much love for. While I am impressed both with Mr. Bryant's background and his general 'go getter' attitude I disagree with too many of his positions to vote for him.

• Alec Fisken – With one exception Mr. Fisken's positions are near and dear to my heart. Get rid of the port levy, focus on profitability, the environment and openness. But Mr. Bryant's point about Mr. Fisken weighs heavily on me, while it's clear what Mr. Fisken is against it isn't so clear what he is actually for and if he has the ability to deliver anything. Just voting No on everything doesn't actually accomplish much. I also don't know that I'm convinced that Mr. Fisken's idea to combine the ports of Seattle and Tacoma is necessarily the best plan. Having single ownership can just as easily lead to inefficiency as to efficiency, competition tends to be the best solution. But in any case of the candidates I find Mr. Fisken to be the most compelling and it looks like there might just possibly be a majority of reformist commissioners next term if Mr. Fisken gets elected. So this is a good chance to see if he can turn his views into action.

• Catherine J. Perkins – According to the Municipal League of King County Ms. Perkins' campaign is not active. She also apparently isn't attending candidate forums or returning phone calls or e-mails so I'll just assume she isn't interested in the job.

• Stephen Symms – Mr. Symms seems a bit of a one trick pony focusing on the security issues of the port with a mention of the need to have multiple airports for King County. I actually agree with the later contention and I think the former issue is a very real one but I am wary of candidates who focus on security above all. Such a focus tends to result in real destruction of civil rights for dubious security benefits. Besides Mr. Symms apparently couldn't get the candidate questionaire returned to the Municipal League and he doesn't even seem to have a website.

City of Redmond – Mayor – John Marchione

• John Marchione – His background both professionally and in the community seem great and his ideas around a high density downtown that acts as a destination also seem just dandy. I also like the fact that he kept the line in the past on making sure the city lives within its means. But I am concerned that no where in his website did he every explain any actual details about his plans nor about how he intends to pay for them. Hand waving isn't leadership. Still, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king so he gets my vote.

• Jim Robinson – I must admit I have a bias against Mr. Robinson because of his role in last year's budget fiasco where the previous Redmond mayor proposed spending more than the city actually had. While Mr. Marchione, as a member of the Redmond city council, stepped in to stop this, Mr. Robinson, who was also a member of the council, supported the previous mayor's budget. I don't like spending beyond our means. Besides if Mr. Machione's website is light on details Mr. Robinson's is positively mute. His Muni questionnaire didn't provide much more information and the Muni council rated him 'good' while both of his opponents got 'outstanding'.

• Holly Plackett – Her website was more detailed than the other candidates but that didn't seem to make a difference in terms of real content. About the only real issue I came away with is her desire to attract a college branch to Redmond. Frankly I like Mr. Marchione's vision better. Her Muni questionnaire had a bit more detail but the idea of having a deputy mayor doesn't excite me at all, that last thing we need is an even bigger government.

King County – Proposition No. 1 – Yes

This proposition would increase the current park levy from 4.2 cents per $1,000 in home value to 5 cents but then index the levy to consumer price inflation for six years before expiring.

I deeply dislike purpose specific levies because they excuse irresponsible behavior by King County Council. Parks, roads, hospitals, police, fire, etc. should be paid for out of the general fund and each year as income changes trade offs should be made. But instead the council just cuts off the 'showy' bits that everyone supports, like parks, and puts them into their own dedicated levies so that the council doesn't need to make really painful decisions. The end result is higher and higher property taxes without any real responsibility.

That having been said our park system is an enormous and critical asset, in my opinion, for King County. We have some amazing parks and I think it makes the quality of all of our lives much better. My wife and I are now regular users of a number of the local parks and we are really impressed. So yes, they are going to get my money. But I'll make myself feel better by voting against every King County Councilperson who voted for this proposition.

King County – Proposition No. 2 – Yes

Did you just notice the park levy double? It used to be 4.2 cents but Proposition No. 1 will make it into 5 cents and this proposition will add another 5 cents. So now the park levy will be $10 for every $100,000 of home value. I wonder how many people in King County would voluntarily spend say $40 (for a $400,000 home) on a one year voluntary park membership? But how many people will now vote for this proposition?

That having been said I actually think that purchasing land to expand our parks is an excellent idea, but again, it should be coming out of the general fund as part of each year's general budget battle. And if the proposition doesn't pass the council will, I suspect, use this as an excuse to do little or nothing. So I'll vote for it but as with Proposition No. 1 I'll make myself feel better by voting against everyone on the King County Council who was associated with these irresponsible measures.

City of Redmond – Proposition No. 1 – Yes

I really want to see some actual proof that we couldn't pay for these positions from the existing budget and/or we shouldn't just increase the general tax levy rather than have special one offs. It's just too damn easy to take critical services and declare that they can't be paid for because it's a given that voters will approve special funds for them. The end result is that hard trade offs don't get made. On the other hand unless I'm willing to dig into the city budget and show where the money could come from then I really don't have much choice but to believe what I'm told. Put another way, it's cheaper for me to vote for this proposition then to do the work necessary to find out if it really is a waste of money. Sad but true. So it gets a yes. And I do feel like the frog being boiled.

City of Redmond – Proposition No. 2 – Yes

The frog continues to get boiled.

As for those who are wondering why a privacy activist like me would publish such private information keep in mind two things. One, I choose to publish this information and choice is the core of privacy. Two, at least until mandatory mail in ballots come to King County in another year or two no one actually knows how I really voted.

• Initiative Measure 920 – NO

• Initiative Measure 933 – NO

• Initiative Measure 937 – YES

• House Joint Resolution 4223 – YES

• United States Senator – Bruce Guthrie

• United States Representative – First Congressional District – Jay Inslee

• State Senator – 45th Legislative District – Toby Nixon

• State Representative – 45th Legislative District – Position 1 – Roger E. Goodman

• State Representative – 45th Legislative District – Position 2 – Tim Lee

• Justice of the Supreme Court – Position 2 – Susan Owens

• King County District Court – Northeast Electoral District – Judge – Position 2 – Frank V. LaSalata

• King County – Proposition No .1 – YES

• King County – Proposition No. 2 – NO

Initiative Measure 920 – NO

This measure would abolish Washington State's estate tax which only applies to the assets of the dearly departed over a $2 million threshold. In other words, the first $2 million is tax free. I personally believe that a hereditary aristocracy will sap the life blood from our republic and give us an even more unfair and unjust society. So I am a strong believer in estate taxes for the explicit purposes of hindering the formation of such aristocracies. Furthermore the very ability to form vast fortunes in the first place is not an inherent right but an outcome of our social policies and what social policies give so they can take away. Think of it as payment for services rendered. Besides, given all the issues facing Washington State and the country was it really useful to spend our limited resources on putting this issue to ballot? I do appreciate the chutzpah of the wealthy but this is an easy no.

Initiative Measure 933 – NO

The basic concept behind 933 is appealing to me, if the government takes value from an individual's property in order to provide value to the general public then the general public should compensate the harmed property owner. But here's the funny part, the opposite should also be true. If the general public creates value that benefits some property owners more than others then shouldn't the property owners receiving the disproportionate benefit have to pay back the general public? For example when a new school or new road or new park goes into an area it is usually paid for by the city or county but it is the people in the immediate vicinity of the new facility that receive the lion share of benefits. So in that case, using the logic of 933, those people should be made to pay more money than the rest of the city/county's citizens. Yet, oddly enough, 933 doesn't address that case. It looks at takings, but not givings.

The language in section 3 of the bill, that sort of (but not quite) allows public agencies to waive their own rules rather than enforce them and have to compensate property owners will inevitably be turned into a full assault on land use regulations. The state and certainly local cities and municipalities don't have the money to fight expensive lawsuits this act will spawn. So the real result of this initiative will be to end land use regulations in Washington State. And, for bonus points, keep in mind that the initiative is explicitly written to address 'property' in the broadest sense. Although we speak of this act in terms of land use it actually applies to all personal property in just about all forms. The consequences of such broad language are more than I care to think about.

This bill is so broad that I don't believe anyone actually appreciates what its full effects will be but at a minimum it will remove land use regulations which, even without the bill's reach into uncharted territory is more than enough to justify voting against it.

Initiative Measure 937 – YES

This initiative would mandate that large utilities (public or private) have to get 15% of their power supply from 'renewable resources' by 2020 with a number of intermediate targets between now and then. Utilities that don't meet their targets have to pay fines although in practice the 'payer' of the fines will be the public.

I really don't like this initiative. I think it's approach is fundamentally wrong headed. I believe that good laws mandate an outcome but allow flexibility in how that outcome is achieved. I believe that a good law regarding power generation would define the general characteristics of desirable power (E.g. it doesn't add extra pollution, it doesn't use up limited resources, etc.) and allow for any source that meets this description to be used. This encourages innovation. Instead this initiative in section 3 part 18 just gives a laundry list of acceptable 'renewable resources'. If someone comes up with something that isn't on the list then tough luck, the law doesn't apply. I believe this kills creativity.

I also don't know if mandating that energy come from renewable sources even makes sense. Shouldn't the goal really be to reduce over all pollution and reliance on non-renewable sources of power? So if a utility, for example, finds a way to reduce its customers energy consumption by 50% but doesn't meet the 15% target for 'renewable power' should they be punished? Yes, I know, the initiative does include some language around energy conservation but it doesn't appear tied to the renewable resource requirements.

I think this initiative uses bad approaches, it dictates methods rather than outcomes. I'd much rather see an initiative that forces consumers of energy to pay taxes that approximate the public damage done by the sources of the energy. That would be the most effective way possible to reduce pollution and our dependency on non-renewable energy.

So I'm left in a quandary. Do I vote for a bill that I think heads us in the right direction even if it does so in a wrong headed way or do I vote to essentially do nothing since that seems the only other option on the table? I'd rather vote for a flawed bill that pushes money into renewable energy than have no bill at all. So I vote, with regret, Yes.

House Joint Resolution 4223 – YES

As I understand it property taxes in Washington State are mostly paid by small businesses on personal property used for business purposes. Currently there is a $3,000 exemption from this tax, this resolution would increase the exemption to $15,000. Since the rules are written into the state constitution the resolution apparently requires voter approval.

Why isn't this resolution indexed to inflation? Better yet, why doesn't it put the exemption at the discretion of the state legislature? I don't like writing this kind of detail into state constitutions. A good constitution, much like the good law described in the previous section, sets goals not means.

But whatever, the exemption sounds like happiness. This type of tax is very regressive. It hits poorer businesses more than richer ones who end up having to pay proportionally more of their income on the tax. Increasing the exemption will actually help the poorer businesses most. As someone who hates regressive taxes this resolution seems a no-brainer. So I'm voting yes.

United States Senator – Bruce Guthrie

• Maria Cantwell – On October 25th, 2001 the first in what has proved to be a series of bills aimed at destroying our most fundamental freedoms was presented for vote to the U.S. Senate. It is my belief that any senator who could even pretend to honor their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" would have voted against this bill. But the price for such a vote would almost certainly have been political suicide. Maria Cantwell had a choice to make, protect the fundamental freedoms of this country or protect her career. She choose her career. She was tested and she failed. In my opinion she is unsuitable to hold public office and I will not vote for her.

• Mike McGavick – Sigh… reading his candidate statement is just embarrassing. Apparently insecure borders are so high on his priority list that he has to waste space in his candidate statement on them. And, of course, there's terrorism. Strangely enough I see nothing about protecting us from a President and a Congress who seem more interested in taking away our freedoms and spending our soldiers lives and our country's treasure on pointless battles against imaginary enemies (with the consequence of having created many more, very real, very deadly enemies). I have no interest in voting for George Bush.

• Bruce Guthrie – The issues he highlights, such as the war in Iraq, the destruction of our freedoms, fair elections, etc. are exactly the ones I worry the most about. His positions seem reasonable enough although his website while admirably clear on his general positions leaves out the details and background that would give me a sense of what he'll do in office. I'll give him some credit though, his website is a hell of a lot slicker than most Libertarians manage to run and I love his bit about temporarily mortgaging his house to qualify for the monetary minimums need to get into the televised Senate debate. Because of his obscurity I don't believe I know enough about Mr. Guthrie to be as comfortable as I would like to be in voting for him and I have to admit I came very close to voting for Mr. Dixon but in the end Mr. Guthrie gets my vote.

• Robin Adair – Ms. Adair's candidate description is, at best, incoherent. Her website is worse. While I realize that being incoherent is no bar from even the presidency I prefer to vote for candidates I can understand.

• Aaron Dixon – Even though there are now decades worth of documented proof that Iran has repeatedly and consistently lied about its nuclear program Mr. Dixon thinks their program is peaceful. He also thinks that "Jerusalem must return to being an international city, one in which Jews, Muslims and Christians can worship freely in and live in harmony." I'm sorry, what?!?! In what version of history was Jerusalem ever an international city? In fact, the only time in modern (or ancient history, for that matter) that Jerusalem was readily available for folks of all major religious stripes to worship in is since it became the unified capital of Israel. I also find his views on economics disturbing. While I agree that NAFTA/CAFTA/etc. were deeply flawed in many ways (opening competition in all areas except those dominated by the rich, funny that in effect we have free trade in manufacturing jobs but not engineers, lawyers or doctors (and yes I'm channeling Dean Baker)) his solutions are empty slogans about 'fair trade', whatever that is. I found his comments on Cuba almost laughable: "It serves as a constant reminder that even a small nation can operate independently outside the U.S. orbit, and prosper." Prosper? Oy. If that's prosperity I'd hate to see his idea of poverty. Then there is his background, filled with all sorts of things like not voting, debts to the city and including a conviction for cashing $7,000 in bad checks, although that was 20 years ago. But to balance all of that is a life spent in service to the people. I think if Mr. Dixon took his own campaign run more seriously, if he had cleaned up things like the outstanding debts before trying to run, etc. then I would probably have voted for him. I'm certainly more comfortable voting for someone like Mr. Dixon with a well understood background and set of opinions then someone who to me appears to be an unknown like Mr. Guthrie. But for now Mr. Guthrie has run his campaign with a serious intent to win, given the kind of nonsense swirling around Mr. Dixon I can't give him the same credit.

United States Representative – First Congressional District – Jay Inslee

• Jay Inslee – Much as with Ms. Cantwell Mr. Inslee was tested and failed his country completely. Unlike Ms. Cantwell, however, Mr. Inslee has been a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq and in fact voted against the bill authorizing the war. While it doesn't make up for voting for the Patriot Act it did take guts. Also unlike Ms. Cantwell, he voted against the Patriot Act re-authorization. I can't forget nor fully forgive Mr. Inslee's failure of our country but I have to give him credit for making up lost ground. Apparently Mr. Inslee's signature issue is the New Apollo Project, a plan to increase our energy efficiency and reduce pollution. Frankly the project looks like yet another big government led initiative to define our economy. No offense but the government sucks at such things. Why can't we just have a pollution tax and let the market figure it out? As long as the government does its job as an honest broker making sure that pollution is measured fairly and consistently we can use market forces to create new opportunities. Instead Mr. Inslee wants the government to create incentives to navigate our way out of our current environmental mess. I'm sorry but I don't trust the government to get it right. I also find his blather about the evil of offshoring rather bothersome but his solutions don't seem too awful. I actually think helping to retrain people whose jobs have been obsoleted by offshoring is a good thing. The market isn't perfect and I do believe that government can play a useful role in rounding out the rough spots. While Mr. Inslee's government first attitude isn't quite to my liking I generally find myself in agreement with him so he gets my vote.

• Larry W. Ishmael – What I love about the Internet is that it gives candidate a very easy way to communicate, at length, with their constituents. Jay Inslee's website was a decent (but not great) example of that. Mr. Ishmael's website is not. He has what to me read like some fairly empty platitudes without a lot of details about the economy and foreign policy. Frankly I'm comfortable with Mr. Inslee's foreign policy objectives and although I don't quite see eye to eye with him on the economy his general direction and focus is fine with me. I just couldn't find anything that Mr. Ishmael said that had enough substance for me to really respond to or to motivate me to vote for him.

State Senator – 45th Legislative District – Toby Nixon

• Eric Oemig – O.k. so he really is into education. Fantastic, I agree that a good educational system is critical to a well functioning and prosperous society, more to the point, it is critical to a just society. Fine, he wants to reduce class sizes, increase pay for teachers, etc. But um… how? Where is the money going to come from? What is he going to get rid of to pay for his grand plans? He also is apparently into Transportation issues and say we have to make things better, but um… how? And how will he pay for it? Oh and he wants to cut taxes. I'm sorry, but what? You can spend money, or you can cut taxes, but given the state of our economy you currently can't do both. It's easy to spout platitudes and hard to have details, I don't see any details on Mr. Oemig's website.

• Toby Nixon – I really liked the things Mr. Nixon had to say on his site. Unlike Mr. Oemig, Mr. Nixon doesn't just propose grand sounding goals, he gets into details on how he will achieve those goals. Want better roads? Raise gas taxes. Want to replace the WASL? Go to more multi-state standardized testing. Want better health care? Get companies out of the way between people and their health insurance providers. In reading Mr. Nixon's views I found myself largely in agreement with him, with the exception of his views on abortion. If abortion were an unsettled issue in Washington State his opposition might have been enough to get me to vote against him. But over all I really liked what he had to say and so am very comfortable in giving him my vote.

State Representative – 45th Legislative District – Position 1 – Roger E. Goodman

• Roger E. Goodman – Mr Goodman apparently comes from the same communication school as Mr. Oemig, put out grand plans (better transportation, better health case, better education) but skip the details. Come on! It's a website, you can create as much content as you want. You can arrange it anyway you want so that short blurbs are up front and details are available behind links. This is your chance to communicate with the voters, why don't you take it? Still in comparison to Mr. Possinger he is a veritable chatter box and what he said was generally o.k. with me so Mr. Goodman gets my vote. How's that for a weak recommendation?

• Jeffrey Possinger – Wow, if Mr. Goodman is brief, Mr. Possinger is positively mute on his website. In essence Mr. Goodman gets my vote by default.

State Representative – 45th Legislative District – Position 2 – Tim Lee

• Larry Springer – Sigh… Mr. Springer apparently shares notes with Mr. Possinger in terms of providing information about his views on his website. Oy, talk about content free.

• Tim Lee – His website wasn't quite as informative as I would like (and towards the end of his issues page he degenerates into empty verbiage) but at least he starts off by stating specific problems and his desired solutions which generally seemed fairly reasonable. Basically, don't let builders build new developments without a road plan, require 60% approval in the state legislature to raise taxes and don't let education money get diverted. All good stuff. He gets my vote. <twirling mustache>Of course as a Microsoft employee my vote for him is probably part of an evil plan to get him elected so he will be distracted by his legislative duties and so be unable to focus on his business selling Linux systems. </twirling mustache>

Justice of the Supreme Court – Position 2 – Susan Owens

• Please see comments from the primary.

King County District Court – Northeast Electoral District – Judge – Position 2 – Frank V. LaSalata

• Please see comments from the primary.

King County – Proposition No .1 – YES

• Oh come on, they just had a prop 1 on the primary ballot! Sure, this is a different ballot, but it's more than a little confusing to have two completely different prop 1s on two ballots only two months or so apart. In any case I can't find out anything about this proposition besides what it says, which basically is – we bought land a bunch of years ago, we paid for it, we improved it, we don't need it, please let us sell it. The only interesting things I could find is that the complete text lists the wrong date for the election and it declares that selling these properties constitutes an emergency. I'm guessing the emergency declaration is a required incantation to get the issue on the ballot. But in any case I suppose I'll vote yes even though nobody could be bothered to submit a statement for or against the proposition.

King County – Proposition No. 2 – NO

• This proposition would raise sales takes by 0.1% (that's 1/10th of 1%) to pay for improvements in King County transit following the "Transit Now" plan, which basically means more buses. I'm sick and tired of special taxes for special purposes. Sure, there are times when tying specific taxes to specific purposes makes some sense, say requiring we use gas taxes to pay for improving roads or fighting pollution. But I consider those the exception. I understand the logic of 'don't let the jerks divert our money' but locking in the cash just sets the expectation that the politicians are free to do whatever they want with the cash that isn't locked down. If you want to raise my taxes prove to me that you can't reasonably cut existing spending and that the new money is going somewhere useful. While I think the "Transit Now" plan may possibly be a useful use of my money I haven't seen any arguments about why it can't be paid for out of existing government funds and I still don't like special purpose taxes. So I'm voting no.