The newest member of the Annapolis City Council is Fred Paone who ran on the Republican ticket. Although only 947 Ward Two residents voted (the big disappointment, although not unexpected), Paone had what I believe to be a surprisingly strong victory.
Official results:
Fred Paone 427
Debbie Rosen-Mckerrow 358
Karen Jennings (Green) 162
CP thought the results would have been closer and that Jennings was going to do better, but on the other hand, she received about one out of every six votes, not bad at all for a third party contender in a three-way race. Rosen-Mckerrow who edged slightly ahead of Paone in one of the two precincts, was certainly hurt by the appearance of Jennings in the race. She lost by 69 votes, had almost twice as many as Jennings, but in the previous Ward Two race, she lost by 44 votes, in a two-way race. Rosen-Mckerrow is a an Annapolis native, and Paone is a long time Annapolitan. While there may be some folks (Democrats but not likely Republicans)complaining about this, I see this as a positive development, as long as we're going to have partisan local elections. Greens are making inroads in Maryland, and Jennings had a stalwart group of them backing her.
Although CP sponsored a candidates' forum, I took no other role in the campaign nor did I endorse, support or favor any candidate. I think we should all thank the three candidates for their commitment and willingness to serve. I don't think that either Jennings or Rosen-Mckerrow are going away (please keep up the good work), and we all expect continued involvement from them. As for Paone,I wish him the best and urge him to consider moderating the strident tone from his campaign. He was certainly a vibrant, entertaining presence in the race, and if he can follow through on his campaign rhetoric, he'll bring a welcome if not brash, as well as serious voice to the council.
However, he, like any other City Council member, is just one of nine votes. In order to be effective, he'll need to figure when to form voting blocs with the other, overwhelmingly Democratic members, who he took to task, however obliquely, but repeatedly, in his campaign. He is likely to be a quick ally of his long-time colleague, David Cordle, and perhaps Democrat Ross Arnett and Independent (fiercely so...) and fiscally conservative, Julie Stankivic.
I hope that all City Council members will rise above the growing swell of Mayoral campaigning and positioning for a race nearly two years away and focus on the important municipal issue of the day, namely public safety and transportation.
Bay Daily on Hiatus
-
Congratulations to Bay Daily creator, Tom Pelton, who has accepted a
position with another organization working to make the world a better
place. In his ab...
10 years ago
3 Comments:
I know, it's a tradition for the democrats to blame the Green Party when they fail to run a compelling campaign.
Many inadequate characters turn to crying and blame to pacify their emotions, and suggesting that the Green Party in some way thwarted a major party's idea of how American Democracy should work is purely self-serving. It's an indicator of how corrupted our misconstrued government, which is not a democracy, but traditionally an elitist system that pacifies the working class with an illusion of input, is. The Green Party threatens the elitist system by refusing to accept business interest dollars. A vote for the Green party is a vote for action, not pacification. Real representation, not bought parties and their speakers. Real change, not lip service.
I see the major parties as indifferent. A false democracy needs to appear to offer choices, right? From my point of view their offerings are so similar they just mean business as usual.
We know the Green Party has a major uphill battle. And getting 17 percent is literally 1/2 the battle. Just 34 percent could win a 3-way contest. We ran a good campaign. The outcome means to me that the status quo won, and would have been the same had Mrs. Mckerrow. That means our electorate isn't pissed off enough about the way the government's run to vote for change. We're all worse off for it, but 17 % is not a baby step. It inspires the
disillusioned.
The facts above are according to my personal experience and do not represent my party.
I agree in the main with what you say. However, I do think it's highly likely that the appearance of a Green candidate took votes away from the Democrat. Perhaps I should have written it differently, but I think it's pretty evident that some of the voters who voted for Jennings would likely have voted for a Democrat had she not ran for office. IN any event, my opinion about his was expressed when I wrote, "I see this (Green Party campaigning) as a positive development..." And if you look at the later posting I provided about the campaign, it is also clear that in terms of party affiliation and registry getting out the vote, the Dems were the big losers and the Green the big winners. Thanks!.
Paul, Paul, Paul,
As was pointed out by people on other blogs, your supposition that Greens "take away votes from Democrats," and cost McKerrow the election, is inconsistent with the facts. I am both a Ward 2 resident (which you are not) and worked (often in vain) to try to get Karen's supporters to actually go out and vote. As such, I can tell you that the majority of Karen's supporters were Republicans, Greens, or Unaffiliated (and even a couple of Libertarians), and that most of her supporters (including Democrats) would not have voted for Debbie regardless of who was in the race. Karen's supporters also tended to be young people who identified more with Karen than with her opponents. As you know, young people vote less often than older people. Contrary to complaints from Democrat activists, Greens do not "take away" votes from Democrats. Our base of support is people who are disenchanted with the two other parties and who would not vote at all otherwise.
Most of Karen's votes came from her neighborhood of Homewood, and Clay St. Debbie's staff wrote off Clay Street. Clay Street didn't vote for Debbie last time, and they wouldn't have voted for her this time. (They won't vote for her next time either). In Homewood-Germantown, based on the hard work we had to do, most of Karen's supporters would not have voted otherwise, although many were excited that their neighbor was running. Many of these supporters were Republicans. In fact, the neighborhood association officers are all Republicans, but most supported Karen after meeting her and finding out that she has the right answers to the city's problems.
Unfortunately for Karen, most of Wed.'s voters came from Admiral Heights and West Annapolis, where she fared poorly. Something the Dems should note is that Debbie lost her home turf of Admiral Heights. She will have to win Admiral Heights to win election in 2009 (I am assuming she will run again?). Republicans voted in larger percentages than Democrats.
In summary, Debbie would have lost the election even in a two-person race (just as she did in 2005). Fred would have won a Fred vs. Debbie match, and I think Karen would have won a Karen vs. Debbie match (because fewer partisan Dems would have shown up, and Reps would have voted against the Dem).
p.s.- One cantankerous old woman showed up at West Annapolis Elem. on Wed. and declared to Paone, "I'm here to vote against Hillary." I didn't even know Hillary Clinton was running for Annapolis city council. Nitwits like that are a good argument for non-partisan city elections.
Post a Comment