WUI (Writing under the influence)

The dust has settled (almost) completely by now. There are new numbers from Forest Grove but they don't change anything. I still came in last.

FOREST GROVE CITY COUNCILOR
VOTE FOR 3
DANA LOMMEN. . . . . . . . . . 1,685 11.75
VICTORIA J. LOWE . . . . . . . . 2,379 16.60
ALDIE HOWARD . . . . . . . . . 1,967 13.72
PETER TRUAX. . . . . . . . . . 3,227 22.51
LINDA WALLARD . . . . . . . . . 1,627 11.35
KRZYSTOF ZMUDZINSKI . . . . . . . 1,044 7.28
ELENA UHING. . . . . . . . . . 2,271 15.84
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 135 .94
Total . . . . . . . . . 14,335

I'm amazed and humbled by the degree of support I got. Aldie Howard, for example, has lived in Forest Grove for some 30 years, has served as a city councilor once and ran for the mayor two years ago. He also ran a real campaign this year. Posted some signs, sent some literature around. Yet, he didn't even get 2,000 votes. Possible explanation for the result is here.

I can claim a big success on the local level. I decided to run when I found out that the City Council decided to place a library levy on the November ballot simply to maintain the current services. I ran because I wanted to introduce new ideas to the debate. One is not against children by opposing unlimited funding for schools or libraries, for example. So I was the only candidate who from the very beginning of the race opposed the library levy. I lost but so did the levy.

34-97 FOREST GROVE CITY LIBRARY LEVY
VOTE FOR 1
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,291 48.38
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,511 51.62
Total . . . . . . . . . 6,802

The difference between the Yes and No votes is so small that I have to believe that the few interviews I did, the letters to editor I wrote and the debates I participated in made a difference.

I listen to Michael Medved from time to time. Today, he again lambasted the third-party candidates and people who vote for them. He was especially mad because there is a very good chance that Rossi will lose to Gregoire in the Washington Governor race because of the libertarian candidate Bennett. I agree with Michael. When a political advantage is in stake, one should vote for a candidate closest to one's views who has a chance of winning.

But, I still think that voting for Cox against Gallegos was the right thing to do. I knew Republicans would keep the house so my vote of protest against Gallegos and against the Republican party was warranted. And I wasn't alone. These numbers show that Gallegos would have won rather easily (even 2% of libertarians still voted for Cox) had she been a real Republican for the past two years.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE DIST 29
VOTE FOR 1
TOM COX (LIB) . . . . . . . . . 1,790 9.50
MARY GALLEGOS (REP) . . . . . . . 7,911 41.97
CHUCK RILEY (DEM). . . . . . . . 9,095 48.26
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 51 .27
Total . . . . . . . . . 18,847

Among the important Measures (the ones I cared about), only 35 and 38 did poorly and failed. On the other hand, Oregon joined 10 other states to explicitly define the institution of marriage, but the Oregonian calls is a step back. By passing Measure 37 Oregonians for the second time in so many years have stood on the side of property owners. Protecting environment comes with a price and somebody has to pay. It's only fair.

So I live in a blue state. I don't care. In fact, since I immigrated to the United States I've only traveled through red states. I had high hopes in 2000 and again this year. It turned out that 2000 was as close as they come. The economy in Oregon is pretty bad and people prefer to blame a guy in Washington, D.C. rather than the guys here in Salem. Go figure.