Incumbent Sherril Huff easily won yesterday’s special election for King County Elections Director, garnering an impressive 44% of the vote in a six-person race. And our good friend Stefan’s spin on Huff’s solid victory?
In 2007 56% of the voters said that it would be a good idea to elect the Elections Director. 44% said it would be a bad idea.
Again in 2008 56% of the voters said that it would be a good idea to elect the Elections Director. 44% said it would be a bad idea.
In 2009 56% of the voters voted for a reform candidate. 44% of the voters voted for a candidate who thought it would be a bad idea to elect the Elections Director; who has repeatedly covered up and lied about problems in the Elections office under her watch; and who wasn’t even eligible to run for the office in the first place.
Perhaps the 44% who voted for her were the same 44% who said it was a bad idea to elect the Elections Director to begin with and were trying to prove to the other 56% that they were right all along!
Yeah, well, Stefan is nothing if not a poor loser.
I’m one of those 44% who voted against electing an Elections Director (and for the only qualified candidate in the race) because I’d rather have somebody who knows how to run elections in the office than somebody who knows how to run for them—but bizarrely picking an elections director in a wide-open, low-turnout, no-primary, special election? Well that’s just plain stupid and irresponsible.
Yet that’s the gamed system that Stefan and his band of bitter, inconsolable Dinophiles pushed for in an effort to sneak a partisan Republican past voters, and so I find it particularly ironic to hear him whining about the outcome after the fact. I mean, if Stefan really believes that a mere 44% plurality of voters just thwarted the will of a 54% majority, perhaps he and his fellow “reformers” should have fought for a primary that would have separated the wheat from the chaff?
But then, who am I to question Stefan’s motives, let alone his statistical prowess?