Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Independent completely misses the point of Measure A. More people vote in even-numbered elections, so Measure A would result in more people voting in city elections. The paper argues Santa Barbara has a "special way" of electing its leaders. How special is the election when voter turnout averages 36 percent? In some precincts, only 20 percent of registered voters turnout during our "special" odd-year elections.
Renters rights in this city are almost non-existent, and we are losing rental units every day to condominiums. I want more renters to vote and get involved in issues that affect their lives. I want renters elected to the city council. As Measure A makes voting more accessible for everyone, it gives me hope that things will get better for me and other people who rent their homes. —Sonya Baker
As someone who usually agrees with your election endorsements, I was more than disappointed by last week's issue, opposing passage of Measure A. Talk about weak reasoning: if your editor had been in my freshman writing class, I'd have sent him home with instructions to 'rethink to correct poor reasoning.'
The gist of your opposition seems to be this: yes, Measure A would save the city somewhere around half a million dollars each election year, and yes, it would substantially increase voter turnout. But it would make Santa Barbara less different, and we like being different. Apparently, being different is more important than saving much needed public funds and creating much more public participation in the democratic process.
Also, you say, Measure A doesn't address other electoral reform issues (such as public financing of campaigns) so it's a bad measure because it does something good, but not something else good. Since Measure A does nothing to prevent passage of those other reforms, it makes no sense to oppose it simply because it addresses a different need. That's like saying, "Vote against a mandatory seat belt law because it's not an anti-drunk driving law."
You have to know you're on the wrong page if you're agreeing with the News Press. So, your assignment: rethink to correct poor reasoning. —Lee E Heller, Ph.D., J.D.
I’m disappointed in the Independent’s recommendation against Measure A. Your rationale is based on the paternalistic attitude that somehow Santa Barbara voters are incapable of casting sensible votes on local issues if their minds are cluttered with non-local matters on even-year ballots. Editorializing that Santa Barbara is a “special community” which has a “special way of electing its leaders” sounds a lot like all the children in Lake Wobegon being above average.
Measure A will double the voter turnout for local elections and save a lot of tax money. Those are facts and should not be confused with The Independent’s supposition that local voters will be unable to vote intelligently on traffic congestion on upper State St. because their minds will be influenced by the national debate on gay rights or the Iraq war.
The issues of political reform, district elections, campaign funding and other issues which you say need to be addressed have nothing to do with the election dates. Having fewer election years will actually invigorate voters who are now forced to endure politicking and campaign cycles almost non-stop. Don’t worry—we can handle the longer ballot. We’re special. —John Vasi