As I stated in this post, I do not believe a public figure's personal life with (limited exceptions) is an appropriate way to decide their value as a policy maker. Although given the option, I would be interested in knowing how, and why the cast their personal ballots a certain way. In an attempt to encourage this voluntarily disclosure (a mandatory disclosure would simply be un-american in my opinion), below find how I cast my ballot in the 2008 general election and the explanation of those votes. Whether your are viewing this post in the contemporary or, viewing from some point in the future in your process of deciding whether or not to vote for me, first, thanks for stopping by, and second I hope that you find my analysis to be thoughtful even if you disagree. History may prove some of these votes to have been misguided, or downright reckless. But today in this moment I defend them, but reserve the right to apologize for them should history have proven me wrong.
And finally a very "politician" thing to say, my vote does not constitute and endorsement. I believe government should make policy based on the way the world is, however it is appropriate for individuals to vote for the world as they feel it ought to be. I cast my ballot according to what I believe to be the correct direction, regardless the outcome of this election however the real work begins after the election.
Colorado 2008 Ballot:
The Votes I stand by
President: Barack Obama, Democrat
While there are valid arguments against Senator Obama's candidacy, what I do know is this: When the people participate in the public process, the outcome is exponentially improved. Barack Obama's candidacy has been unprecedented in the engagement of disenfranchised voters. Granted it didn't hurt that the failures of the Bush administration and the resulting distrust of government at all levels helped return the focus of the public to importance of politics, but I do believe that Senator Obama embodies for many what is truly right with America. That said even if Barack Obama's candidacy was not an extraordinary revitalization of democracy, on a practical level, in the face of the challenges we face, the last thing we need is an obstructionist government. The Democratic party will have the majority in both houses of congress. While I normally support the check of ideological opposition in government, in emergency times, it would be unwise to elect a potentially veto happy executive branch.
U.S. Senate: Mark Udall, Democrat
Mark Udall is clearly a better candidate for our times than his opponent Bob Schaffer. Our environmental crisis did not go away because of our economic collapse. However it has certainly fallen off the radar. While addressing our immediate fiscal crisis is top priority and it ought to be, I am confident that Mr. Udall who has been a staunch supporter of conservation and renewable energy remembers that climate change is real, pressing and I trust that he will return to his hallmark agenda as early as is practical. Mr. Udall has also cast 3 important votes in his career that showed tremendous courage and history has proven, sound judgement. He voted against the war in Iraq and voted twice against the economic recovery act of 2008 (known in contemporary parlance as the 810 billion dollar wall street bailout). Mark Udall will be an important voice for our "other" biggest problem, he needs to be elected to ensure that the environment does not fall away from the list of priorities in this mad dash to soothe our recession, and avoid a full blown depression. Our environmental, and economic challenges are actually one and the same and we need a member of the Senate who will lead the charge to tackle them at the same time.
U.S. Congress: Jared Polis, Democrat
In the interest of full disclosure, Jared Polis is a friend of mine, and my personal "economic stimulus plan" is to work on Jared's congressional staff (there are currently no specific plans to hire me, this idea is my idea and my idea alone). With that said, Jared simply is the candidate that holds values of the district he seeks to represent. The Republican candidate Scott Starin, seems to be a bright guy and a "good Republican" in the sense that he believes in some of the things that I agree with in terms of states right's, local control, and efficient free markets, and it is unfortunate that many republicans that are true to the historical fundamentals of the party will get swept away in the democratic tsunami. Mr. Starin's other challenge is that Jared Polis also believes in efficient free markets, local control, and states rights. Mr. Polis is a different the kind of democrat, the kind that was needed in the congresses of 2001-2006. A socially liberal, fiscally conservative leader who understands how to speak to people in their own language. Thanks to Jared I have now seen the wisdom of charter schools for example. Mr. Polis has a unique ability to figure out what is truly important to a person and either learn and amend his position or when appropriate sell his position. This skill will serve him well in congress. Finally at the age of 33 Jared will be the standard bearer for a new generation of leaders. His perspective is one that is missing from congress since Bobby Jindal (Republican) left to become Governor of Louisiana. Though I disagreed with some of Mr. Jindal's philosophies, there was no denying that his perspective was one that I frequently found compelling because he spoke in the language of my generation. Jared is not an ideologue but rather a pragmatist. He believes, whether the issue is education, health care, or the myriad challenges the next congress will face, that the important question is not "how" to solve the problem but rather "if" the solution is going to work. Without a commitment to an ideological "partisan way" Jared will seek the compromise to ensure the efficiency, and efficacy of federal programs.
University of Colorado Regent: Joseph Neguse, Democrat
In the interest of full disclosure, Joe is also a friend of mine, I did no investigation into the republican candidate because though I fear the at some point I may run against and loose to Joe in a primary, I still feel honored to cast a vote that launches what will be a stellar political career. Further Joe is probably the most qualified person on the ballot in the context of the office they are seeking. A recent executive of the student government, and intern for speaker of the house Andrew Romanoff, Joe knows the State Capitol about as well as he knows CU. Joe's passion and energy will only be shadowed by his technical expertise. It is just my hope that Joe likes the job, that will keep him busy while I run for the general assembly, wink wink.
Colorado State Senate: Rollie Heath, Democrat
There was no republican candidate for this office which I think is unfortunate. Fortunately Rollie is a moderate. In the primary I supported his opponent Cindy Carlisle. Ms. Carlisle is probably a better ideological representation for the district. She was also the insurgent candidate. It was very clear Mr. Heath's candidacy had a lot to do with party insider politics. It is noteworthy that in a very liberal district, in a political climate running to the left, Mr. Heath (who by the way I am closer to ideologically than Ms. Carlisle which is to say to the right of the median of the district) trailed Ms. Carlisle at the county convention populated by very liberal "Obamacrats" only to win a clear victory in the primary. This is attributable to a number of factors not limited to the unfortunate timing of controversial but correct votes cast by Ms. Carlisle as a member of the board of regents, but there is no denying that inside party politics had a hand in that outcome. All that said, I believe Rollie will do a very good job, he will bring credibility to that seat infamous (in Denver, not in my opinion) for far left policy. Rollie is probably the best opportunity to show the state that Boulder can send pragmatic centrist leaders to Denver, and perhaps by simply being himself (again Rollie and I agree on most things, particularly his drive to return vocational training to public primary education) Mr. Heath can dismantle some of the stereotypes of the district 18 seat. Rollie will serve us well.
Boulder County Commissioners
We elect our county commissioners all at large, without getting into the flaws of that system, suffice to say that it is unfortunate the degree to which urban values become imposed on rural Boulder County. Further while I personally know and sincerely like all 3 current commissioners, the lack of intellectual diversity on the board is troubling to me, for that reason I choose the following candidates
Ralph Schnelvar, Libertarian
Cindy Domenico, Democrat
Amendment 46: Yes
For a very thorough explanation click here
Amendment 47: Yes
For an explanation and a funny story click here
Amendment 48: No
A person's choice for how to manage their reproductive health is simply not an appropriate role for Government.
Amendment 49: No
I reconcile my vote of yes on 47 with my vote of no on 49. If a person has the option to join a union or not, pay the dues or not, then I don't have a problem with the automatic payroll deduction. Is this the use of public resources for "private" union activities, yeah sure it is, but really the amount of staff time to do these payroll reductions is no more than an accounting error. I'm all for increasing efficiency in government. This measure however is not about efficiency, it's a punitive measure against union's masquerading as ethics reform.
Amendment 50: Yes
People who have a gambling problem have a social disease, keeping the stakes low does not cure that disease, in fact, much like diet soda and light cigarettes, low stakes likely exacerbate the problem by giving the illusion of safety. Giving communities the ability to decided what types of gaming they want to have would have been fine enough for me to support, the additional honey pot of money for education was to too much for me to resist, let the games begin!
Amendment 54: No
When you become a public employee, you don't cease being a citizen. It is patently outrageous to say that because you have a government contract you should be disallowed from contributing to or supporting political candidates. Is there collusion in public life, of course, but we're talking about teachers and firefighters here, this is a slippery slope that leads to a valley where by the same logic you could argue these folks should not be allowed to even vote. Is that a paranoid concern? Yes, but I think there are too many that don't quite understand the end game of this measure.
Amendment 59: No
I just couldn't say forever. I really wanted to vote for 59. I support the concept of a savings account for public education. I think the financing of public education should be a major priority for our state, particularly to alleviate inequity between wealthy and poor school districts as well as the disparity between urban and rural school districts. I just believe that there has to be a better way to do it than forever signing away any TABOR refunds. Another issue here is, let's say this had been in effect this fiscal year, well that would mean that a. $0 dollars would have gone into the savings account, b. There would not have been a compulsory increase in education spending next year (59 would repeal amendment 23) and c. had this not been a referendum C year, effectively, education spending would have ratcheted down. I do think there needs to be a dialogue about dismantling TABOR, but let's have that talk instead of trying to disassemble it piece by piece. And finally should 59 fail, perhaps that will be the impetuous for our general assembly to finally make primary education funding a priority, that after all is THEIR JOB!
Referendum L: Yes
Only I wish they went all the way to 18. If you have the right to vote, you should have the right to lead, or at least the right to run for office. If the candidate is not prepared the people won't elect them, but there are people that are 25 years old that can add valuable perspective, particularly in the arena of education in the general assembly. Further should 25 year olds begin getting elected, I believe the result would be a larger participation in government and politics at all levels by young people. The key to bringing in disenfranchised voters, regardless if the class of people is an age, a race, or a sex, is the example of someone like them in elected office. Jared Polis in congress, Joe Neguse as regent will inspire other young people to participate. The general assembly will be better for young elected members.
Boulder County 1A: Yes
I admit that I am myopic when it comes to renewable energy. 1A effectively turns the entire county into an improvement district and by doing so gives regular homeowners access to low cost municipal financing for renewable energy and efficiency projects. This unlike standard bonds however is NOT tax-payer financed. These bonds are paid by self selecting participants and while there will be some administrative costs those are more than offset by increased property tax assessments on participating properties.
Boulder County 1B: No
I was not convinced to satisfaction leaving public grants to non-profit organizations to the whim and tastes of elected officials is a very good idea.
Retain Judge Klien: No
He made a very bad call. The job of a judge is to be judicious, he failed that test, I suspect he will get re-elected anyway but at least I am not complicit in that.
City of Boulder 201: No
This new property tax assessment could potentially limit the tolerance for education and county public safety taxation measures. The City needs additional revenues, the city organization is a little bloated, and could definitely use de-brucing of it's revenue streams but the property tax is a cop-out that endangers agencies like the school district that don't have anywhere else to turn.
City of Boulder 202: Yes
City of Boulder 2A: Yes
City of Boulder 2B: Yes
Just because I disagree with the decisions of the council does not mean they are corrupt. In fact it would be better if they were corrupt because at least then there would be a way to change their mind's. Rather our council (not all just 4 in particular) are zealots who truly believe they are doing the right thing. I strongly disagree, however if they are going to pursue divisive and anti-business, anti-middle class, anti-common sense policies, they might as well be efficient at it. Executive sessions are a matter of efficiency for a very transparent, very honest, if not equally misguided political body. Further executive sessions for Boulder City Council is consistent with the leadership of most our peer Colorado municipalities.
City of Boulder 2C: Yes
This is simply a logistical clean-up
City of Boulder 2E: Yes
With the wealth of visiting expertise thanks to being the host of the state's flagship institution of higher learning, it's simply a practical matter to have the ability to tap into that knowledge base.
Buyer's Remorse
Elections are a long process, but eventually, you cast a vote and make a choice, and sometimes immediately thereafter you regret your choice, the following votes are ones that I cast and now have already reconsidered.
Boulder County Commissioners: Ben Perlmann (Democrat)
As stated I know and like our county commissioners though I have frequently disagreed with there policies. I think the board would be best served by some intellectual balance hence I voted for Libertarian Ralph Schnelvar. Of the three incumbents I believe Domenico to be the most pragmatic so I was glad to vote for her. However I know wish I had voted for at least one Republican for no other reason than to encourage the party to strengthen itself. Though I endorsed national one party rule in this election, I made the caveat that the urgency of our times demand it. However, by and large Boulder County is in good shape and I believe would be even better with a stronger Democracy. I believe that the incumbents will be re-elected handily, however the percentage break down does matter for future elections and I regret not voting for Perlmann's Republican challenger for that reason.
Colorado State Representative: Dickey-Lee Hullinghorst
This buyer's remorse is a personal one. I've gotten to know Dickey-Lee. I believe she will do a good job. What I regret is that I did not run for the seat myself. Had I run, I'm sure I would have lost in the primary. And if I thought the Republican challenger had an even outside chance of winning I would have voted for her so that I could run as a centrist Democrat (which I am) in 2 years which would have been possible. But I caved. I was encouraged (cajoled) not to run because "it was Dickey-Lee's" turn. That is not democracy, the function of a political party is not to be a power broker, particularly inappropriate for the Democratic party. One party rule is bad because it compels the radical pendulum swings that cause chaos on the implementation level of public policy. Remember long after leaders are gone the staff of public agencies remain, often to find themselves doing complete about faces once every 4-8 years. One party rule also encourages a system of spoils while removing the best tool moderate new candidates have in a primary contest which is "I can beat the other party" Since I am liberal I don't mind far left candidates, and frequently vote for them, but it would be at best disingenuous to not acknowledge that it is the very primary process, particularly in uncontested primaries (which this was, as far as I know I was the only person who dared show interest in interrupting the coronation) that train candidates to be radicals rather than centrists.
I wish Dickey-Lee well, I would concede that in the question of "experience" she is more qualified than I, though I am not completely comfortable with all of her policy positions, and for that reason I cannot guarantee that I will sit out for 8 years. All that said my remorse in my vote has nothing to do with Dickey-Lee and much more to do with me regretting the fact that I caved for the "good of the party". And for that I owe the residents of house district 10 an apology.
Amendment 52: Yes
I liked the concept of dedicating resources to specifically address the states transportation problems, however I am generally uncomfortable with dedicated funds, particularly constitutionally dedicated funds. Dedicated funds is the public's way of punting responsibility. I understand the concept of "vote for specific funding because politicians can't be trusted", however I challenge that argument by saying that it is our obligation to elect politicians that we do trust. The reason to have a general assembly is because in the dynamic world of public policy, priorities change. We should have the confidence in elected officials to respond to changing challenges and opportunities on our behalf. And should a leader not honor that confidence we do have remedies for that, namely recalls and elections.
Amendment 58: Yes
Though I fundamentally agree with the policy, and generally discount the potential negative fallout in terms of the price of consumer natural gas, I regret my vote of yes because this measure is clearly punitive. To "raise" (in reality normalize the statutory rate) taxes on a specific industry because they are particularly profitable is a bad precedent. Sure this time it's "the big evil, Mr. Burnsesque" Oil companies, who are making record profits, and are not paying the current statutory tax rate, and yes they will still have a comparatively low effective tax rate, but it is clear that there is the air of opportunism in the timing of the measure, and the political advertising in support makes it clear that the intention of this amendment is to be punitive.
And now enjoy this video supplement with clips from a early voting rally by Jared Polis' campaign
Comments