Comments on Breakfast links: A new era in Ward 5 - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Ms. D

Thu, 17 May 2012 19:52:35 EDT

Unless we want to go all Australia up in this joint and make voting compulsory, when lots of effort is made to inform citizens of their options to vote in an election, and they still don't vote, turnout is not an issue. The people who had an opinion voted, those who didn't care didn't. In the last several elections (general, primary, and special), I have convinced at least a few people who wouldn't have otherwise voted to vote. Even in 2008, I had to practically bludgeon my family and drag them to the general election polls (they live in a swing state and have a lot at stake in various policy differences). Not voting is very popular in the U.S. How we change that is anybody's guess.

Comment by lilkunta

Thu, 17 May 2012 06:58:22 EDT

Very glad about the rolling Rd Catonsville fire. All cameras should be set afire. It is a tax not a traffic control device. Study after study has shown that the cameras arent calibrated correctlyand that red light cameras has qucik yellows into red INCREASING rear end collisions.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 16 May 2012 21:29:31 EDT

[off-topic: @ Erik: www.dcdutch.org Not interested. I did go to a few Dutch events outside the DC area, but for some reason they weird me out. My problem, all nice people.]

@ Ms D:Yes, Jasper...the SYSTEM kept people from voting.

I did not say that. I just noted that few people showed up. If a lot of effort was put into getting people to show up, it was wasted. It did not work. Don't know why, don't care why. They did not show up, that's all I am observing.

I am confused why it's hard to understand that you can't have democracy without involvement of the people. Democracy = Power by the people. You need two ingredients: people and power. The people were missing.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Wed, 16 May 2012 21:21:33 EDT

The idea of the New Urbanists wanting to force everyone through their prism is usually promulgated by those with a similarly myopic view point.

I don't know who you're talking about, but you're right that it's a bit of the gimmick, like the grays v. whites or Eisenman/Krier. There are plenty of CNU members building in cities, they just don't get to write the zoning code and package the whole deal, so it just looks like urbanism.

I used to recommend Kunstler to people, but he's too problematic and there are too many good alternatives now to suggest even The Geography of Nowhere anymore.

Comment by wd

Wed, 16 May 2012 15:52:28 EDT

I'd like to thank the mpd for having a mobile speed camera on southbound 4th and O St in SW over the past few days. There has been a noticeable reduction in people speeding down the street. Commuters are using the road as a cut though to south capital street instead of just staying on M St until S. Cap.

As a resident and a walker/biker/driver, I would love it if there was a permanent speed camera set-up there.

Comment by Ms. D

Wed, 16 May 2012 15:43:30 EDT

Yes, Jasper...the SYSTEM kept people from voting. The same system that "hid" the election by posting signs all over the place announcing the pending election's date, as well as information regarding early voting. The system that "hid" the election by stationing elections board workers at the RIA Metro for a week straight (last week) handing out flyers containing the same information as the aforementioned signs. The system that had candidate's signs all over the Ward, on both public and private property, many of those signs also carrying the date of the election because it was unusual. And, of course, the same system that made all that information available on the BOEE's website for the last several months. And, of course, having 2 locations for early voting and same-day voter registration also was a huge blow to making voting accessible to every citizen who chose to exercise their rights.

If some citizens' voices were not heard, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Comment by Thayer-D

Wed, 16 May 2012 14:19:04 EDT

The reason New Urbanists are closely associated with suburban development interests versus urban interests is the availability of large peices of land in the suburbs and the ability to re-write the zoning and codes that are responsible for urban sprawl. Also, the idea of influencing the builders of this sprawl has had it's advantages. The idea of the New Urbanists wanting to force everyone through their prism is usually promulgated by those with a similarly myopic view point. Like anything, take what you like and dump the rest. As for Kuntsler, he's gotten a bit deep into his end of the world/peak oil jag, but he'll always be looked at kindly for opening the eyes of those not conversant with these issues.

I've always had an issue with the term New Urbanists as if it's all about a marketing gimick, but again, that was a pragmatic view towards gaining a market share from an industry averse to change that was/is destroying our environment. To me what they and others do is urbanism, period.

Comment by Erik Bootsma

Wed, 16 May 2012 14:04:08 EDT

Jasper, I didn't know you were Dutch? Do you come to the DC Dutch Events?

www.dcdutch.org

Comment by Alex B.

Wed, 16 May 2012 13:55:42 EDT

Neil,

I'm surprised he mentioned that the bust hurt the New Urbanists hard. Does he have particular proof that it's worse than the rest of the APEC professions, or is that a tacit admission that the CNU aligned itself too closely to suburban developers?

Check out the videos here:

http://placeshakers.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/this-just-in-from-cnu20/

Particularly the professionally made ones - the first one, entitled "New Urbanist Confessions" - there are several confessions of just that - too closely aligning with suburban development interests.

http://vimeo.com/42041786

As for Kunstler, that type of verbal bombast is just his style. It can somewhat entertaining in person, despite what I think are some serious analytical shortcomings of his work.

That said, Geography of Nowhere is still a great book.

Comment by Fischy (Ed F.)

Wed, 16 May 2012 13:27:59 EDT

@Neil Flanagan -- I also noted the point about how the bust had hurt New Urbanists. It really stood out as a totally unsupported, sweeping pronouncement in a verbal salad of unsupported pronouncements and lots and lots of potent adjectives. I tried to make a snarky point with my own over-the-top observation, but that was probably self-defeating. Perhaps Kunstler has written other things that are worth reading. I'll have to check out what he's written, so thanks for the info. But, this piece was not very valuable.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 16 May 2012 13:25:46 EDT

@ AWalkerinTheCity:wait isnt jasper from one of those euro countries with mandatory voting and high turnout?

Nup. I think only Belgium and Greece have mandatory voting. The Netherlands does not.

We do have high(er) voter turnout (than the US). One of the reasons is that politicians actually try to convince voters to actually vote. It's rather customary for the out-going PM to call on election day for everybody to vote, even if not for him or his party. Also, there is no such thing as voter registration. As an adult citizen, you are entitled to vote and will get a voting card. That's a positive effect of the citizen's registry that Napoleon started when he was in charge.

Voting turnout varies. About 50% for EU elections, a bit higher for local, and 70-80% for national elections.

I'd favor a system anywhere where seat stay empty if people don't vote. In proportional elections, you could fill the turnout percentage of seats. In district elections, you could require that at least 50% of eligible voters show up. That way absent voters get a say too.

@ JustMe:And whose fault is that

I am not interested in fault or blame. Just in the result: an election that is not democratic by lack of the demos/people.

Comment by Kyle W

Wed, 16 May 2012 13:20:39 EDT

I think one of the reasons I voted (outside of civic duty etc etc) was so that when Bowser did something I didn't like, I could legitimately say "hey, I didn't vote for her!"

Comment by dcd

Wed, 16 May 2012 12:32:47 EDT

On the speed camera...I applaud citizen actions against ever encroaching government surveillance. We need to draw the line somewhere...drones, speed cameras, security cameras everywhere, NSA reading our emails. When do we fight back? by Redline SOS

Wait, aren't you the same government lawyer who repeatedly exhorts the government to provide "affordable housing" for government workers? Glad to see you're . . . flexible as to the proper extent of government involvement. Subsidizing private housing - yes. Public safety - no.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 16 May 2012 12:28:25 EDT

he's also provided lots of ammo for folks claiming new urbanism is a war on the suburbs, on the auto, is extreme, intolerant, etc, etc, etc.

poor old DPZ, CONU, and all the other "moderate" urbanists get tarred with the same brush.

Comment by jimble

Wed, 16 May 2012 12:08:00 EDT

@Fischy: The author of the New Urbanist piece, James Howard Kunstler, can be a bit of a kook, but through his widely read books The Geography of Nowhere and Home from Nowhere he has done as much as anyone to bring the evils of sprawl and the ideas of the New Urbanist movement to the general public's attention.

Comment by Neil Flanagan

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:55:19 EDT

Fischy: Kunstler is one of the duller and more self-important knives in the drawer - with some serious prejudices. But if you run it through a Hemingwizer, you'll find some interesting issues to discuss.

Comment by HogWash

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:49:17 EDT

The critique was almost entirely about the fractured vote totals.

You're right.

One last thing: if the most egregious demagogue in the race, Mr Wilds, had been competing for votes against two or three other demagogues, and between them they had significantly more votes than the winner, I think Wilds sympathizers would have a valid complaint. That was the basis of the complaints after Orange won.

Don't understand this one.

Comment by JustMe

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:37:35 EDT

85% of the registered voters in Ward 5 did not participate.

And whose fault is that (disclosure: I actually didn't vote, though I'm happy with the outcome) ? People who didn't vote have no one to blame but themselves, and I include myself in this group.

Comment by Fischy (Ed F.)

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:37:01 EDT

I read the New Urbanist piece. Hysterically funny. The writer must have swallowed a dictionary's worth of adjectives, and it was expressing itself as verbal diarrhea. I'm left hoping to meet "the asinine Joel Kotkin, and dashing Richard Florida" -- just to see how asinine and dashing they really are. Apparently, we are in some "quadrant of the long emergency." I would appreciate it if someone could link me to a graphical representation of the long emergency, so that I could figure out exactly which quadrant that is. Either that, or get the writer back on his meds.

Comment by oboe

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:35:41 EDT

Comment by Fischy (Ed F.)

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:29:08 EDT

by Redline SOS

I'm pretty sure that's why we decided on elections -- to avoid civil conflict. If "we" don't want all that surveillance, "we" need to find candidates who will make that their priority. Otherwise, "we" need to respect the majority's right to govern.

Comment by Phil LaCombe

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:24:59 EDT

It's outrageous the lengths to which drivers will go to maintain their perceived right to speed--to hell with people who get around using their own two feet. Shame.

Comment by cminus

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:20:13 EDT

@HogWash, I think the question was "is there anyone complaining that poor turnout undermines the legitimacy of yesterday's special election who said the same when Orange beat Biddle?", or is complaining about turnout only something that happens after a preferred candidate loses?

And, yes, I still feel that persistently low turnout is not a good sign of long-term health for a democracy, and that we need some kind of runoff system in DC elections. Notwithstanding that I would prefer McDuffie to Hunter, Hunter deserves to have a chance to go head-to-head with McDuffie.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:19:24 EDT

wait isnt jasper from one of those euro countries with mandatory voting and high turnout? Is this about DC, or about a general diss at American democracy? If the latter, I would suggest its off topic.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:16:45 EDT

"Your constitution speaks of "We, the People", not "We, the few of us that bother to show up"."

how many people actually voted for the state conventions that ratified the US constitution (even limiting ourselves to white males)????

As for 'classical' democracy I doubt every citizen actually showed up for the athenian assemblies (again, not even mentioning the slaves and non-citizens and women who were excluded)

the proper word is "a democracy troubled by issues of apathy and low participation"

Comment by Alex B.

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:14:38 EDT

They were not heard.

Or maybe they were - the sound of their silence also speaks volumes.

Comment by oboe

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:11:30 EDT

Yep, most in here did. In fact, his win led to yet another discussion about how unfair the process is, instant runoff voting and otherwise.

I think you're conflating two things here: I don't think anyone (perhaps Jasper) complained about turnout. The critique was almost entirely about the fractured vote totals. In a winner-take-all system, that's the real injustice. Not low turnout, but the fact that natural groupings of voters have to somehow "guess" who to vote for.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:10:21 EDT

@ David Alpert:let's not overly narrow the definition of "democracy."

It is not a narrow definition. Demos means people. All of them. They have not spoken in this election. They were not heard. Oligarch may not be the correct term, but ten let's call it a few-o-cracy.

Your constitution speaks of "We, the People", not "We, the few of us that bother to show up".

I am not very interested in the discussion on which votes are suppressed or not by having low turn-out. That is an endless debate. I just want to protest the notion that it was a democratic election when the vast majority of the people could not be bothered to show up. It just is not.

The sun is not green, the gravity points down, 1+1=2, and this was not a democratic election, by lack of involvement of the people.

Comment by dcd

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:04:26 EDT

@Oboe: In the words of the Canadian philosopher Neil Pert, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Who could have known 30 years ago that Rush encapsulated, in a 2-line lyric, the constitutional argument for health care reform. Visionary, I tell you (and from an Ayn Rand disciple!).

@Dizzy: Thanks a lot. Now I'm hungry, and have to trek over to Wisemiller's for lunch.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 16 May 2012 11:01:04 EDT

too bad Gray didn't endorse McDuffie. I suppose he will come around though - ready for a Gray-McDuffie-Wells alliance?

Comment by HogWash

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:55:12 EDT

my impression is that Mcduffie won with quite a few votes from older black ward residents who do not think of themselves as progressive - but who saw a young, smart, honest, black man who made them feel proud and not ashamed.

Yes Yes Yes! And keep in mind that many of them were also those who voted against Linda Cropp, for a young, fresh, seemingly, smart, potential hometown powerhouse.

That said, to those carping about the turnout - did they carp about the turnout when Orange won?

Yep, most in here did. In fact, his win led to yet another discussion about how unfair the process is, instant runoff voting and otherwise. Many of these people likely don't have the same position in this case and thought the election was fair.

Glad the brother won either way...considering his attachment to the Gray adminstration. Ironically, being associated with Gray didn't work too well for biddle. The stark differences between the two should tell us something.

Comment by Jim T

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:51:23 EDT

The special election is in some sense more democratic than most elections in that people could vote regardless of party registration in the election that mattered.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:51:19 EDT

and the Va outcome, with low participation translating into reactionary outcome, is important because its about the fundamental dispute in view of politics behind the pro and anti oligarchy POV.

Oboe seems to assume that voters will seek the best for the polity - and that by excluding those who will do so on false grounds (he looks friendly) from the elite who will do so on true grounds (he has the best positions) you get the best outcome. Thats what Aristotle called an aristocracy.

Western political thinkers from Hobbes through Madison and beyond, have tended to think that people choose based on their interests. The few doesnt choose for the best interests of all, but for their own, and tends to be corrupted. I think the consistent results of national politics in the last few decades, where turnouts of 50 to 60% lead to results where the interests of the top half of society are privileged, often at the expense not only of the poor but of the general interest, confirm the Madisonian view (even if Madisons substantive politics would approve)

Comment by DCster

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:50:23 EDT

Jasper - I am getting the data from the same sources.
My point is that the actual turnout was higher than 15%, and, if placed in proper context, it was not low (for reference, last year's special election had citywide turnout of 10-11%).
If (in 2010) there were 61,500 adults in Ward 5 (you can add a few thousand for the 2 years since), that comes to over 95% of those adults being registered to vote (and at least some of Ward 5 adults must not be citizens eligible to vote), which I find to be overly high. So the turnout among the voting eligible population was higher than 15%.

I don't disagree with you on the theoretical point that DC, and the US as a whole, is not a democracy in the classical sense of the term.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:44:14 EDT

@oboe

high participation rates do not always mean progressive outcomes - in a healthy democracy there will be alternation in points of view. I merely note the difference between the virginia vote in 2008, with high turnout and in 2009 with low turnout. Also the difference in congressional vote nationally in 2008 and 2010. While clearly there are other factors, I think its also clear that there is and will likely continue to be a GOP advantage in congressional elections in off years, ceteris paribis (sp?) DC with its unique demographics and issues, is rather an outlier.

I also think that the ideological approach that disdains the choices of the mass of voters is inconsistent with what I consider progressive principles.

To reiterate though - the choice to not vote is not made in a vacuum. Some non voters would never vote in any circumstance - but clearly many are at least vaguely aware of the candidates and WOULD turn out if there was a likelihood that one who openly disdained them and their interests would win. Imagine if Ken Cuccinelli had run in ward 5 - or, for that matter, if it had looked like Day would win, and some opponent had called for mass turnout to avoid that. The folks who sat at home did not feel threatened by Wilds, Hunter OR McDuffie, and so sat home. That choice is possible in a system with universal suffrage - its NOT where you cannot vote because of you income or race, where you cannot vote in any circumstance. Look at how candidates can rail against illegals, with the only ramifications being loss of votes among their legal relatives. Thats why formal suffrage matters, and why an oligarchy is different from a low turnout democracy

Comment by watcher

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:43:28 EDT

I eagerly clicked on the New Urbanism link, only to find out the piece was penned by Kunstler. That is a little like relying on Randall O'Toole's assessment of sprawl. I still like what Kunstler has to say (even though he comes across as such a curmudgeon).

As for the Ward 5 race, how does the turnout compare to other special elections?

Comment by oboe

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:34:37 EDT

My point is that it's called democracy, rule of the people. All the people. Not just a few. When more than 9 out of 10 people do not show up, it's not a democratic election. It's a few-o-cracy, or oligarchy.

In the words of the Canadian philosopher Neil Pert, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

@AWITC:

I'm not so sanguine that high participation rates mean progressive outcome. It seems to me if there is a relationship, the causality could run in either direction.

As far as the underlying meaning of these low participation rates, I wish people were more engaged and educated about issues. Unfortunately, they're not. But you shouldn't blame your oven thermometer for the fact that the turkey's not cooked.

Comment by Dizzy

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:31:32 EDT

@Jasper

Not voting is also a democratic act. Perhaps not always intentionally, but it is a statement of disengagement from the process, and people are free to register that statement. It's just another form of "none of the above" or writing in "Chicken Madness" (a perennial vote-getter in Georgetown's student body president elections) or "I don't care."

Comment by David Alpert

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:27:47 EDT

I'd love to see more turnout, but let's not overly narrow the definition of "democracy." Democracy is fundamentally different than other forms of government because it is OPEN to everyone (or, at least, almost everyone). Oligarchy is where a small group of people are the only ones ALLOWED to vote.

Having most people weigh in on a decision is better than having relatively few, but at least having a system where all those people could weigh in if they wanted to is enormously different than not letting them at all.

Comment by X

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:27:43 EDT

In addition to removing speed cameras which violate our privacy I advocate removing liscense plates and registration of vehicles. Why should the public have any say about knowing who to assign blame to when I drive recklessly? If someone really wants to sue me for hitting them then they ought to have due diligence to remember what I drove and what I look like to begin their own surveillance.

Comment by Redline SOS

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:18:31 EDT

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:14:12 EDT

@ DCster: Data comes straight from the Census and DC BOEE.

http://www.dcboee.org/voter_stats/voter_reg/2012.asp

I can't do better. Can you?

I think 15% turnout (and it was actually higher once absentee and early voting is included) is not bad

That is a political point. 15% is not enough to validate the use of the word 'democracy'. 85% of the registered voters in Ward 5 did not participate.

Comment by Thayer-D

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:13:51 EDT

Concerning the tweeking of the Eisenhower memorial, replacing the statue of a little boy with the larger heroic statues of a President and General won't mitigate the totalitarian effect of 80' concrete pylons and the giant metal fencing that walls off the public space from its urban context. It's not the style, or the concept that will bother the passerby, but rather the urbanism that's most appaling.

Comment by DCster

Wed, 16 May 2012 09:56:50 EDT

For a rainy, special election with no other races on the ballot, I think 15% turnout (and it was actually higher once absentee and early voting is included) is not bad (expecting turnout levels typical of the Midwest would be overly optimistic).
I'm also a little skeptical that there are actually 60K+ active, registered voters in Ward 5, as the Census data indicates a 62K adult population - 98% of voting-age residents being registered to vote seems a little high to me. Regardless, McDuffie's vote share in an 11-candidate race was impressive.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Wed, 16 May 2012 09:48:34 EDT

@oboe

that makes you and George Will. Here in VA low turnout means rule by reaction. The best that could be done to improve politics in Va would be to shift our statewide elections to the Pres election year.

In general low turnout is not good for progressive politics - whats best to address choice based on personality is to organize around interests, including poor peoples interests. Though it does progressives well to pick candidates who are attractive in their personal attributes - my impression is that Mcduffie won with quite a few votes from older black ward residents who do not think of themselves as progressive - but who saw a young, smart, honest, black man who made them feel proud and not ashamed.

That said, to those carping about the turnout - did they carp about the turnout when Orange won? The US has lower turnout than some countries, and turn out in primaries and special elections (even well publicized ones) tends to be low.

You could avoid special elections by, you know, not electing folks who get in trouble with the law.

You could make general elections more important than primaries if you had a viable two party system in DC - given the failure of the Greens/statehood to get off the ground, that means the GOP. A strong GOP in the district will only happen when the national GOP is moderate enough to appeal to urban residents. I am not holding my breath.

You could also try to make registration and voting easier.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 16 May 2012 09:48:11 EDT

@ oboe: My point is that it's called democracy, rule of the people. All the people. Not just a few. When more than 9 out of 10 people do not show up, it's not a democratic election. It's a few-o-cracy, or oligarchy.

Quite frankly, my point of more linguistic than political. My point is that you can not call an election where more than 90% of the people do not show up democratic. It simply is not. It is not what the word democracy means.

Ward 5 just had a oligarchic election that was won by McDuffie.

Now, you can argue that an oligarchy works better than a democracy. Perhaps voting should be mandatory. Perhaps voters should be tested on basic knowledge before being allowed to vote. All different debates. But, not my point. My point is that it is not democratic when a massive majority of the people is not heard.

Comment by oboe

Wed, 16 May 2012 09:34:25 EDT

@Jasper,

I'm not sure. One could argue that a vote by the small subset of the electorate who gives a damn is more meaningful than an vote with 99.99% turnout. Call me an elitist, but we might end up with better politicians (and better politics) at the national level if fewer people voted, given how studies show they make their decisions.

"I sure would like have a beer with than guy who appears to walk and talk like me!"

Comment by Joe

Wed, 16 May 2012 09:32:02 EDT

@Jasper, I'm glad McDuffie won but I agree with you about the low turnout being disappointing. What are your suggestions? I'm also unclear how this was a "hidden" election; I don't live in Ward 5 and I felt pretty informed about it. As for the people not being heard, if they'd wanted to be heard they could have done something about it; they chose not to, clearly.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 16 May 2012 09:26:08 EDT

@ trouncing

Let's run some numbers:

McDuffie got 4,085 votes.
Ward 5 has 74,308 residents, 60,586 of whom are registered to vote (not bad actually).
He got 6.7% of registered voters , and 5,4% of Ward 5 residents.
Turn out was roughly 15% of registered voters, and 12% of residents.

That is a pathetic outcome for a supposedly democratic process. The people have not been heard (or did not bother to be heard); just a few got their way.

Nevertheless, to call this is a "trouncing" is somewhat overstating the facts. This was another hidden election where very few people bothered to show up, and it can not be taken as a serious poll of the people.

Comment by RJ

Wed, 16 May 2012 09:05:33 EDT

Speed camera torched: Should read, "ONE commenter applauded the action".