Boulder Election 2011

Given recent local election coverage, you'd think the only things we're voting on were municipalization and corporate rights. However, Boulder has no fewer than eight ballot issues this year.

Issue 2A allows the city to sell $49,000,000 in bonds for critical infrastructure needs, including maintaining streets, bridges, buildings, and recreation facilities; upgrading software, the main library, and police and fire equipment; and improving transportation connections and streetscapes. It's hard to argue with those priorities. The bonds will be paid back using existing revenue streams. Plus, the work will generate local jobs, helping the local economy.

Issue 2B allows the city to extend and increase the utility occupation tax levied on Xcel's customers to further investigate the feasibility of a municipal power utility. Question 2C authorizes the city council to create a power utility, if it proves it can do so in a cost-effective manner, with rates and reliability comparable to Xcel's and a plan for more renewable energy.

David Miller, in his guest commentary a week ago, rightly pointed out that there are many unanswered questions related to this proposal. We don't know how much it will cost, nor how much additional renewable energy will be feasible. However, we can't know these answers without approving both measures. So, the real question is whether we want to know, or whether we will continue to trust Xcel to work in Boulder's best interest.


[more]

What, Me Vote?

It always amazes me when elected officials take the fact of their election as a message that people actually agree with them.

OK, it doesn't amaze me, but it still doesn't seem logical. Of course, once you are elected you really can't operate under any other assumption, but that doesn't mean you're not wrong.

In this country, about a third of those eligible to vote are actually politically active enough to vote regularly. There's your base: half of these regular voters. You can count on them as long as you don't do something stupid.

It's the fifth of all adults who vote once in a while that you really need. Convincing them of your position won't convince them to vote for you, nor will that strategy work for your opponent. They don't know much about the issues, nor do they care much about politics. What gets them to the polls is anger.


[more]

How Did I Do? Election 2010

Are people reading my recommendations more this year? Are they starting to take me more seriously? Are people actually starting to read the issues and think about their implications before voting?

I'm not sure what happened this year, but the election results were much closer to my recommendations than they have been in past years. Probably just luck.

I called for a protest to vote "No" on all statewide ballot issues. In fact, almost all were soundly defeated. The only one that passed was a measure referred by the legislature to allow them to temporarily move the state capital in a state of emergency. Definitely not a big deal.

And voters approved every single county, city, and school district issue, including five tax increases. The only issue in the batch that I had recommended against, the Boulder Valley School District tax increase was certainly for a good cause. My concerns had to do with accountability, and hopefully BVSD will prove responsible with this new chunk of cash.

And maybe my winning streak will continue into future years.

Whose words?

Many are happy to interpret recent election results, but to me it's simple. People are out of work and taking it out on their elected officials.

According to my statistical analysis of past elections, the unemployment rate has been responsible for about a third of switched congressional seats. Further, when the unemployment rate is above about 7 percent, that contribution leaps to somewhere between half and two thirds.

When unemployment is high it is a huge factor in house seats being lost by the president's party. When unemployment is low, other factors come more into play.

Based on this theory, you could have predicted that Democrats would lose at least 40 seats in the House without looking at a single news story, poll result, party platform, or campaign ad.

But there's more to this story.

[more]

Local Taxing Issues

For those of us living in Boulder, five of six local ballot issues this year include tax increases. Given the current financial conditions, we need to look closely at the short-term and long-term benefits of each before casting our ballots.

County Issue 1A's property tax increase was drafted in response to a confluence of three factors. State legislation required the county to spend down its human services rainy day fund; state funding for human services needs has been cut significantly; and, due to the recession, the rainy day has arrived.

Not only is it wise and humane to help people in our community who are feeling the worst pain of the economic downturn, the county is also required to do so by state law. This measure is responsibly crafted: It has a five year sunset, makes good use of public/private partnerships, and directs the commissioners to reduce the new tax as state funding is restored and conditions improve.

County Issue 1B is a new 0.15 percent sales and use tax for open space acquisition. Most people are not fans of higher sales tax, but most in the county like our open space.


[more]

Vote No

Colorado's constitution is ridiculously easy to change. To pollute our fundamental governing document with your own poorly written special-interest trash only requires convincing 50 percent of voters in one marketing blitz.

There may be some hidden benefits among this year's Colorado ballot measures, but to make things easy and make a point I'm voting against them all.

The crème de la crème of over-the-top ballot issues is the group of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101. Their sheer complexity is reason enough to reject them. Funded by people hiding in the shadows, the goal of these measures is nothing less than destroying state and local government in Colorado.

[more]

How Did I Do? -- Election 2009

First of all, I'm glad to say that all of my choices on the City of Boulder issues were agreed to by the voters. Four out of four, not bad.

I didn't do so great on the county issues. Issue 1A, the extension of the Open Space tax, failed by about 4 percentage points. It looks to me that this was partly because of the economy, partly because the County Commissioners did not do a good job of explaining why it needed to be renewed 10 years in advance of when the tax expires, and partly out of backlash against current open space policy.

However, if you look at that backlash, it seemed to come from both sides -- for example, one person commented that he voted against the tax because he wasn't allowed to mountain bike on county open space, while another said he voted against it because of too many bikes on open space. This sounds like a can't win situation. That's especially true since most of the folks who complained about the open space department seemed to be confusing the city's open space rules with the county's -- the contentious mountain bike rules actually are on city property. So, bottom line, lack of a good sales pitch by the county, coupled with ignorant voters who had to lash out against something.

The real puzzler was County Issue 1B, the extension of the ClimateSmart loan program, which lost by two percentage points. This program is already in place and has been enormously successful. It helps locals fund improvements that cut CO2 emissions. It adds to local jobs. And the best thing is that it doesn't cost anybody a nickle except the people who take out the loans.

It looks like 1B was caught in the backfire against 1A, as there was no organized opposition. Again, opponents seemed to not understand it, thinking it was a tax increase, and the county did not do much PR in advance of the election.

Both of these issues will undoubtedly be on the 2010 ballot, and the county will undoubtedly do a much batter sales job then.

Still undecided is Question 1D, the extension of term limits for DA from two to three terms. Latest results show that ahead by just 41 votes, too close to call with the last of the ballots still to be counted.

And that leaves me with the city council race. My endorsed candidate, Barry Siff, came in sixth in a race in which the top five get seats. He missed it by just 672 votes (not all votes have been counted, but there are not enough ballots outstanding to change the results).

Why did Barry lose? (Ok, best of the rest.)

As I see it, the biggest issue was the media and others who lumped the candidates together into so called "power blocks". There was the pro-environment slate, those endorsed by the Sierra Club and PLAN Boulder County, and there was the so-called pro-business slate. With his credentials, Barry could have been on either list. But because he has been a businessman, he was lumped in with the second group.

In Boulder, not being endorsed by the Sierra Club and being labelled pro-business are the kiss of death at the ballot box for many. Undoubtedly, he gained some votes by association with the business crowd. But he did not stand out from that group, and I think it was a net loss for him.

It would have been a better strategy, I think, for Barry to have tried to straddle both groups. He could have been the environmental candidate who actually knows how to pay for it, for example.

In any case, the fundamental makeup of council didn't change much, in spite of the loud voices of the mostly anonymous single-issue attackers.

So, Barry, have a well deserved vacation and when you come back think about whether there is some other way to contribute to this community and maybe get to be better known for the next election cycle (if you're still up for it).

How Did I Do? Better than the County Clerk!

Every year after the election I compare how I recommended and voted with how all of the ballot issues actually fared at the ballot box. This time, it took three days for the county to finish counting votes in Boulder County, the slowest in the entire state.

What went wrong? Well, apparently the folks doing the counting were paying attention and noticed some anomalies in the optical scanning that was picking up votes that weren't made. It took hand checking each ballot for paper dust and ink smudges, a very slow process. I guess no other jurisdictions were doing the same type of check, so they were able to finish faster. Please, nobody tell them that their vote counts may not be accurate.

Anyway, back to my own report card. First, I got 100% on the City of Boulder issues. That's right, the city voted with my recommendations on all seven of the questions on the ballot. Are that many people reading and agreeing with my blog, or are the people here just that much smarter? Basically, people agreed to continue funding the city at the current level, but not to give council more powers.

At the county level, I got one out of two. I recommended a NO vote on extending the Worthy Cause tax, and it passed with flying colors (which I could have predicted.) Oh, well. I don't think the money from this sales tax will go to any group that doesn't deserve it. I just wish people were trusted to make their own decisions on who to give to.

We did pass, in line with my recommendation, the new clean energy district, a novel way to fund, with no public expense, small renewable energy and efficiency projects. Boulder folks are smart AND generous.

On the state level, I didn't do as well. State voters ignored my recommendations on nine out of fourteen issues.

My successes: Luckily, Amendment 48, which redefines "person" in parts of the state bill of rights went down narrowly. Amendment 52 also failed -- it would have taken money from water projects, pine beetle mitigation, and other priorities that will be getting more urgent with global warming, and spent it on getting more people in their cars to ski resorts. Two out of three of the attempts by business to cripple unions also failed. Less critically, voters agreed with me that 21-year-olds are not old enough to run for state legislature.

Big losses: Referendum O would have protected our state constitution against the continued onslaught of amendments, but failed because too many people were convinced (incorrectly) that it would decrease their ability to write initiatives. Amendment 50 won, giving state casinos the right to not only stay open all night and increase bet limits, but also prevent their own taxes from going up. Two measures that would have helped with education funding went down -- Amendments 58 and 59. Amendment 51, a sales tax to help people with developmental disabilities failed; I guess Coloradans as a whole are not as generous with their sales tax dollars as Boulderites. Amendment 54 passed. Like Amendment 41 in a previous election, it takes a semi-reasonable idea (in this case preventing undue influence by government contractors) and pushes it way beyond reasonable, probably way beyond constitutional.

Mixed blessings: Also failing was Amendment 46, which would have ended affirmative action in the state. No doubt it is still useful, but symbolically it still grates. And Referenda M and N also passed contrary to my recommendation. These remove so-called obsolete clauses from the state constitution, although I wasn't convince in either case that we had the whole story.

Yes, this Insomniac is out of touch with the Colorado voter, and proudly so!

Summary of Colorado and Boulder 2008 Ballot Issues

I have now read every single issue on this year's ballot from the City of Boulder, Boulder County, and the State of Colorado, and analyzed the pros and cons of each. You may not agree with any particular recommendation, but you can easily see how I came to my recommendation and come to your own decison based on all of the facts. My biggest goal is to ensure that fewer people vote on issues based on either just the ads or just reading the issue title on the ballot.

Remember, when in doubt, vote no! Here's the list. The most important issues are bold. The ones that are crossed out have been withdrawn and the votes will not be counted. Click on any specific issue to see my full analysis.

Colorado Measures

Vote	Issue
YES	Amendment 46 Colorado Civil Rights Initiative
NO	Amendment 47 Right to Work Initiative
NO	Amendment 48 Definition of Personhood
NO	Amendment 49 Limitation on Public Payroll Deductions Initiative
NO	Amendment 50 Limited Gaming Initiative
YES	Amendment 51 Sales Tax for Developmentally Disabled Initiative
NO	Amendment 52 Severance Tax & Transportation Initiative
NO	Amendment 53 Criminal Liability of Executives
NO	Amendment 54 Clean Government Initiative
NO	Amendment 55 Just Cause
NO	Amendment 56 Health Insurance Initiative
NO	Amendment 57 Safe Workplace Initiative
YES	Amendment 58 Severance Tax Initiative
YES	Amendment 59 Savings Account for Education Initiative
NO	Referendum L Candidate Requirements
NO	Referendum M Obsolete Constitutional Provisions
NO	Referendum N Obsolete Constitutional Provisions
YES	Referendum O Initiative Process

Boulder County Measures

Vote	Issue
YES	Issue 1A Clean Energy Options
NO	Issue 1B Worthy Cause Tax

City of Boulder Measures

Vote	Issue
YES	Issue 201 City Retention of Property Tax Funds
YES	Issue 202 Sales and Use Tax Extension
NO	Question 2A City Council Compensation
NO	Question 2B City Council Executive Sessions
YES	Question 2C Amendment of Recall Election Procedures
NO	Question 2D Permit City Lease up to Forty Years
NO	Question 2E Qualifications for Appointment to City Commissions

Running this City would be so much Easier if only... Boulder Ballot Questions 2B, 2C, and 2E

City Council is asking for a few changes to the city charter in this election, changes that they believe are important to the smooth functioning of city government.

Question 2B would, for the first time ever, allow the council to meet in executive session to discuss "sensitive" issues, without the public present, something that is allowed in most other cities in this state. The meetings would require a 2/3 majority of council to approve, and would have to be on one of a few defined topics: property sale, acquisition, or lease; legal advice; security matters; negotiation strategies; and personnel matters.

These seem like reasonable precautions. But the fact of the matter is that the current system has worked fine since the city was founded. I'm not convinced that this new power is really needed.

Question 2C would amend the procedures around recall elections. Because of changes in state law, the recall timelines and procedures in the charter are no longer realistic. The changes proposed here would bring the city's process into line with what is required by the State of Colorado.

Question 2E would amend the charter "to provide that city residents may be appointed to serve on city commissions even if they are not city electors, if they are at least eighteen years old and if they have resided in the city of Boulder for at least one year immediately prior to their appointment." Under the current charter, only "registered electors" (U.S. citizens registered to vote) can be appointed to these positions.

Ignoring the substantive question for now, I find this one confusing and ambiguous. By the sentence above, commission members who are not city electors would be allowed if they meet these new requirements. But it is not clear whether city electors (i.e., citizens who are registered to vote) would have to also meet the age and residency requirement.

I went on a mining expedition on the city's website to try to figure this out. What I discovered was that on August 19 the city reviewed and approved the proposed change (after it had been modified in several previous council meetings). In the approved ordinance, the actual language of the charter would be changed as follows:

Each of such commissions, including the library commission, shall be composed of five electorscity residents, appointed by the council, not all of one sex, who are well known for their ability, probity, public spirit, and particular fitness to serve on such respective commissions and who are at least eighteen years old and who have resided in the city of Boulder for at least one year immediately prior to their appointment to serve on the commission.

So, there is no ambiguity in the actual change. Being a registered voter does not remove one from the requirement to have lived in the city for a year. So despite the comment in the presentation to council that "at the second hearing, a good deal of attention was given to crafting a ballot title that accurately reflects the changes being suggested by the proposed amendment", the ballot title implies an ambiguity that is not in the actual change.

Although the difference may seem trivial, I'm of the opinion that citizens should not have to go on a treasure hunt through public records in order to understand the actual changes being proposed in ballot questions. My reading of the ballot title led me to believe that registered votes would not have to meet the new requirements, but in fact they would.

Now to the actual change. Commission members (who generally advise council but have no real power other than that) would no longer have to be registered voters. Because of that, it would implicitly allow non-citizens (and convicted felons) to be appointed to these positions. Commission members would also now have to be residents of the city and to have been so for a year.

Council could have avoided much of the controversy of this measure if they had added the requirement of being a legal resident of the U.S. (and perhaps not a convicted felon). However, they did not want to impose the burden of actually enforcing these checks on commission members. (Note that they already have to check for legal residency for city employees.)

Convicted felons and illegal aliens are probably among the last people that will apply to these commissions, so the actual impact is probably pretty minimal. But council is giving the appearance that they are not listening to the concerns of the citizens by not addressing these issues.

For all these reasons, I think council should go back and work on this one some more. Getting broader participation in city commissions is a laudable goal, but it's not important enough at this time to ram through a deceptively titled issue that ignores the concerns of many citizens.

Vote NO on Question 2B.
Vote YES on Question 2C.
Vote NO on Question 2E.

I'll Explain When You're Older -- Colorado 2008 Referendum L

Yes, it's that time of year again. The ballots are being printed and people are starting to discuss the extremely long ballot we're going to have to vote on. The State of Colorado alone will have 18 measures on the ballot. Boulder County will also have two, and the City of Boulder will have seven. As usual, I'll be analyzing each of the issues between now and the election, so keep tuned as I make my way through them.

At the top of the list are four issues referred to the ballot by the state legislature. First on that list is Referendum L, which would reduce the required age to serve in the state legislature from 25 to 21. Upon reading the bill, I noticed that they also added the requirement that a candidate be an elector of the State of Colorado, which means registered to vote here, although this aspect doesn't seem to be discussed in other forums.

First, the age limitation. Typically one graduates from college at about 22, so this would allow college juniors to run for state office. This doesn't excite me, although I suppose in theory they would naturally be filtered out at the ballot box. But then, why let them run in the first place if they may not be qualified?

Who is old enough to serve in the state legislature? I would think that a minimum would be a college graduate (or equivalent real world experience) plus a couple of years out in the real world. So, maybe 23 or 24 would be ok, if the candidate were very mature, smart, and had relevant experience.

Second, the referendum would add the requirement that a candidate be an elector of the State of Colorado -- registered to vote. This is actually a good idea, as it would filter out people from serving who don't care enough to actually vote.

Unfortunately, this measure is written as an amendment to the state constitution. This means that it will be very difficult to make even minor changes once approved. It will have to go back before the voters. Therefore, it has to be right, or we may be stuck with a bad rule for a hundred years.

Therefore, I would send this back to the state legislature to get it right. Add in the requirement to be an elector, but don't lower the age limit any more than about 24, if at all.

Vote NO on Referendum L.

McCain Plays to his Base and Tortures Constitution

I wrote earlier about the positions that the Democratic Presidential candidates had taken in support of requiring the Commander in Chief to follow the dictates of the U.S. Constitution. Although I haven't seen a specific response from Senator McCain, his recent statements give a sense of where he stands on some of the issues.

A few days ago the Senator from Arizona, who himself was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, urged President Bush to veto a bill that would have made it clear that waterboarding and other torture techniques can't be used by the CIA. So, the presumptive Republican candidate thinks it important enough to play up the conservative base that he is willing to compromise his own principles and make this statement, claiming at the same time that it is consistent with his previous positions.

I'm sorry, John, but this doesn't bode well for your ability to convince independents that you truly think outside the Bush bubble.

So, how in the world did we get to the situation that the right to torture has become a liberal vs. conservative question? Isn't it obviously a question of common sense along with the guiding principles of the Constitution?

Well, one point in Sen. McCain's favor. He has promised not to follow the Bush lead of issuing signing statements on legislation he disagrees with and usurping the Constitutionally-granted powers of the legislative branch.

So now we know McCain's position on two of the ten issues on the Constitution-protection hot list. He's against torture but doesn't think that should be written into law. And he is against signing statements. Let's see if we can find out where he stands on the other eight points.

An Oath and a Pledge

When our next Commander in Chief is sworn in, he or she will make the same oath as George Washington:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, our founding fathers thought it so important that they made it explicit in this oath. Protecting the Constitution is more important than protecting the Flag, protecting the Citizens, and protecting the national interest.

And yet, not all Presidents have taken this oath seriously. Our current President, George W. Bush, has taken abuses against the Constitution to new lows. Yes, you can argue that he is doing the same things as his predecessors. No doubt that is true, although he has gone much further than any in recent memory.

That is why, to me, the most important issue in the Presidential race this year is the candidates' stands on protecting the Constitution. If a candidate can only keep us safe from terrorists by locking us all up, then I say, don't bother we'll take our chances with the bad guys. If the only way to maintain a healthy economy is by scrapping freedom, then we'll scrounge for bread crumbs. Remember, our founding fathers were willing to give up their security and risk dying to create this institution. We shouldn't be so ready to give it up to keep the securities we have collected over the years.

And that is why it's not surprising that a liberal group and a conservative group with very similar names have taken on this very issue. The right-wing American Freedom Agenda and the left-wing American Freedom Campaign have both created 10-point pledges for the candidates, outlining specifically how they will undo the damage done to our founding document by the current administration.

Rep. Ron Paul, whose campaign has gotten lots of interest but few votes, was the first to sign on. He even introduced a version of the pledge as a bill on the House floor. None of the other Republican candidates (neither McCain nor Huckabee) has followed. However, all of the Democratic candidates have signed the pledge (Obama) or issued similar statements (Clinton).

Here's the bottom line, and why the founding fathers felt so strongly about this. When it's your guy (or gal) in the White House, then abuses of power are all for a good cause. No harm, no foul. But beware. The other team is bound to get a turn in control. And when that happens, they are sure to use all of the same new powers, and are likely to push them even further.

So, if you trust George Bush to decide who is an enemy combatant, would you also trust Hillary Clinton to make the same determination?

Here's the list from the conservative group. See if there's anything on here that's not a no-brainer:

• Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
• Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
• Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
• Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
• Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
• Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
• Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
• Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
• Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

Now, go vote based on your candidate's willingness to follow the Presidential Oath of Office.

Colorado Caucus: In Which Thousands of People Pretend to Vote

The other day, I decided to go to the Colorado Caucus for the first time, to see if I could figure out whether it makes sense in this primary season. You see, about five years ago Colorado decided to dump its primary to save money. Then, for this election, the replacement caucuses were moved up to Super Duper Tuesday to give us the illusion that our votes matter.

Well, it turns out that record numbers of Coloradans had the same idea as I did, and decided to give the caucus a whirl. There were overflow crowds across the state, and Boulder was no exception. But did our votes matter? I still haven't figured out how this works. But in our precinct we elected seven delegates for the county convention and assembly, in March. At that forum, delegates will be chosen to go to the state convention in May. There, Colorado's delegates to the national convention will be chosen, and they will hopefully bear some resemblance to the delegates chosen in the individual precincts. But then there's something about super-delegates chosen by the party. So, when they say that Colorado voted for Barack Obama, it seems to me to be just an interesting theory for now, one that will hopefully be borne out in a few months.

We headed over about 6:20 (to a neighborhood middle school), wanting to get there in time to register. And when we were half way there, we started noticing the heavy traffic. This is strange, I expected that there would only be a few political wackos showing up. Instead, the school parking lot was full, and people were parking in the neighborhoods blocks away, and walking back to the school on the snow-and-ice-covered streets.

We walked around to the front entrance of the school. People were handing out campaign stickers for Obama. Again strange. I know that it is illegal to electioneer within 100 feet of a polling location in Colorado, but I guess the caucus doesn't count for some reason.

Walking in the front door, we see the registration table. But there is also a line of people waiting. We follow the line down the hall around the corner, down the next hall, and just keep going. Eventually the line splits in two and heads for the back of the school. It winds through the lockers by the gym so that people don't have to stand outside behind the school in the cold. We find our place in line at the end of a row of lockers.

Well, this is crazy. There are probably a thousand or more people waiting in line to register, and maybe five volunteers checking them in. I know the caucus is supposed to start in twenty minutes, and line isn't moving. Is this going to be a 2:00 AM commitment?

Ten or fifteen minutes passed and we made it past one row of lockers and into one of the main hallways. It was clear that nobody had expected this level of turnout. Someone started handing out registration cards to people in line, but there was no sense of when they would be needed. Until there was a rumor that they had stopped registering people. Were we just supposed to go home? No, everybody was gathering in the cafeteria, or maybe the assembly hall, or the gym. We followed the crowd, and crammed into a big room with no space.

Well, at least we were in the right place. After a while, the chair of one of the local precincts (it turns out that eight of them were caucusing at the school) got up to talk.

The first order of business was to give us the agenda for the night. The good news was that we absolutely had to be done by 8:45. That's PM. Less than two hours. Then each a representative for each candidate got to speak for exactly two minutes. Not a second longer, as the emcee was literally dragging them off the stage if they went over.

When the big group broke up, the original plan had been for each precinct to take over a classroom for its meeting. That plan was obviously out the window. So, our precinct, along with two others, went to the gym, and it was pretty tight in there.

Each of the precincts had to pick someone to be in charge. Then we had to figure out how to actually count the votes. You see, another difference between an election and a caucus is that there is no secret ballot in the caucus. You have to public state who you are supporting. So eventually we had all the Obama supporters stay in and near the bleachers, while the Clinton supporters went to the other side of the room. The uncommitteds were to stand under the basketball hoop. My wife and I split up, not to see each other until the night was over. Each group counted itself off. For Obama, 121. For Clinton, 33. The uncommitted group was deemed nonviable. Since we got to pick seven delegates, that meant 5.5 for Obama and 1.5 for Hillary.

Well, we couldn't very well split a delegate in half, so we needed to resolve the rounding issue. One more count. And this time, with the undeclared recommitted, the totals came out 121 to 34. Hillary won the round-off. Then the two groups had to select the five or two delegates, plus alternates for the county convention and county assembly next month.

With the presidential choice selected, a number of people left. We went through the same process to select our party's nominee for Senate (Mark Udall won all seven the delegates.) Then, our congressional district (Jared Polis got four delegates and Joan Fitz-Gerald received three.) Again, we had to select delegates.

The final order of business was the survey on the party's platform. But it had been published only on the web and nobody had filled it out or brought copies. So that was pretty much a waste of time. It's the thought that counts?

What did I learn? Well, a caucus is pretty much the opposite of an election. Secret vs. open. Neat vs. messy. Electioneering illegal vs. electioneering encouraged. For the masses vs. for the people who have very strong opinions. Designed to fit into your life vs. you'd better work your life around it.

The other thing that is obvious is that people are very much into this presidential election. I understand that last time only one person showed up from our precinct, and in the last presidential election there were only 12. This time it was 155.

Plus, I'm not even sure to what extent my vote last night actually influenced the selection of the party's candidates. You'd think with fewer people voting than in a primary each individual vote would be worth more. But then with such an arcane, byzantine process, who knows?

Who Caucus?

Up until about five years ago, we had primaries here in the State of Colorado. Then, in an attempt to shave some government spending, we converted to the caucus system.

I liked the primary system just fine. Since we allow early voting by anybody here in Boulder County, it meant studying the candidates at your own pace, and then heading down to the county courthouse at your convenience to cast a ballot. Or, waiting until election day, and going to your precinct polling place. In any case, for a primary there was never any wait. So, even though we adopted one of the slowest voting processes after the incompetents in Florida forced everybody in the country to abandon perfectly functioning voting systems, it was pretty quick.

But no longer. I haven't been to a caucus, so I don't really know how they work. But here's what I picture: The biggest loudmouths in the neighborhood gather and argue their points of view. I assume it's mostly the people with the most strongly held, and possibly extreme, points of view. The more reserved folks, if they bother to show up at all, probably just sit in the back of the room afraid to speak up. And anybody who has a life may not be able to make the time to give up a Tuesday evening anyway.

I'm not all that impressed with this whole primary/caucus season anyway. Folks in early voting states have a big say. But if you voted for one of the fringe candidates your vote may not even count, as your candidate may have dropped out before the convention. And later voting states don't even get the choice of many of the non-mainstream candidates. A month into the election season, and by the time I get a say my first, second, and third choices may have all dropped out. (Okay, I have a weakness for losers.)

Meanwhile, the media is going all kooky over the whole process. Mostly, I suppose, because of all the air time they have to fill, they are over analyzing to the point of ridiculousness and embarrassment.

But this is the process we have. And I need to keep an open mind. So, we decided to go to the caucus on Tuesday night. I'll give up or reschedule my swim practice. We looked up the location. (With elections, not only did the precinct maps and locations all get published in the paper, but you would get a postcard reminding you exactly when and where to go. Not so with caucuses.) And I'll write more here after I see how it goes.

Six Votes are Better than Seven

I discussed my choices for the Boulder city council election recently.
And, even though we get to vote on candidates for seven seats, I plan on only voting for six.

I came up with six candidates at the top of my list, and three not quite as strong. However, each of those three (Appelbaum, Cowles, and Osborne) is a pretty strong candidate with a reasonable chance of winning a seat (although none of them is a shoe-in). Osborne is the most highly endorsed candidate. The other two have significant city government experience (Appelbaum as a previous council member), and have as many endorsements as two of my favorites.

This means that a vote for any of these three could bump them up over one of my favorites. Therefore, a vote for one of my second tier selections could actually be a vote against one of my first tier selections. If I voted, for example, for Macon Cowles, he came in seventh place, and beat Larry Quilling by one vote, I could have cost big Larry the seat.

So, I suggest if you have some favorites that you consider not voting for candidates that you may not feel as strongly about.

Advice of Council: Boulder City Council Election 2007

Choosing who to vote for in the city council election is not simple for somebody like me who tries to always think rationally. At least with ballot issues you can read the text of the question and rationally evaluate what it says. With council candidates, you have to look at dozens of sources to get a feel for the positions of each candidate, along with determining whether that candidate has the smarts and temperament to serve in this position for the next four years.

And this election is particularly tough, with 22 candidates for 7 seats.

Of course, being me, I made a spreadsheet. On one axis, I listed each candidate, and along the other I listed each major issue and each major endorsement. Then I read the candidates' stated responses to the various surveys and forums and assigned them plus and minus points for each. I gave (or deducted) extra points for each endorsement from a major interest group.

So, here's where I ended up. These are not endorsements, just a statement of who I plan on voting for. Your selections may vary depending on your own spreadsheet.

The top six (in alphabetical order):

• Crystal Gray
• Lisa Morzel
• Eugene Pearson
• Susan Peterson
• Larry Quilling
• Ken Wilson

I highlighted Susan Peterson and Larry Quilling because neither has gotten as many endorsements as the others, but both seem very thoughtful and knowledgeable and deserve careful consideration by any voter.

My seventh vote will be one of the following, and I'll probably decide when I fill out my ballot:

• Matt Appelbaum
• Macon Cowles
• Susan Osborne

Or I may just vote for six.

Boulder Ballot Summary 2007

It's an odd year (very odd, in fact), so the ballot is short. But there are a few local issues to figure out. I've gone through all of them so you don't have to (but please do so anyway.)

As usual, my advice is to vote NO on any issue you don't understand fully.

Boulder County Measures:

• YES on Issue 1A: Open Space Tax
• YES on Issue 1B: Transportation Tax

City of Boulder Measures:

• NO on Issue 2A: Permit City Lease Up to Forty Years
• YES on Issue 2B: City Council Compensation
• NO on Issue 2C: Clarifying Circumstances That Cause a City Council Vacancy
• NO on Issue 2D: Filling City Council Vacancies

Forty Year Old Virgins in the Wilderness: City of Boulder Question 2A

Question 2A on the city's ballot is pretty simple. Should we grant the city council the right to lease public property for up to 40 years (instead of the current 20 years)?

Well, they already have the right to lease out public property. And it would require a 2/3 council majority. And it would free them up to better do their job.

However, one must ask, why are they asking for this now? Is there something coming up that we don't know about that will require leasing public property for 40 years? The things that come to mind are the Conference Center which has been proposed for the Farmer's Market area, and the Transit Village west of 30th Street. These are both highly charged projects that will require significant discussion. It appears to me that this change would allow the council to bypass some of that public discussion.

Vote NO on City of Boulder Question 2A.

More Pay for More Crimes Equals Less Turnover: City of Boulder Ballot Questions 2B, 2C, and 2D

The Boulder City Council has been thinking about itself more than usual lately. Three out of four of the city measures on the upcoming ballot ask us to improve the way the city council works.

Question 2B gives council members a big raise. They could earn up to a big $1,000 per month for what amounts to about a half-time job. Plus, they'd get cost of living increases in the future. This is almost a 200% increase for someone that attends the usual two council meetings per month. Although the relative amount of the increase is large, the total compensation still doesn't make it a lucrative position.

It is interesting that, although the per meeting pay would almost triple, the pay would cap at two meetings per month, as opposed to the current four. This would provide some incentive to not schedule special meetings (which they occasionally do today.) That's probably not a big issue, but it does make me think twice.

Question 2C would change the city charter's clause that currently states council members can be removed when they are convicted of a crime or felony, to state that they will be removed upon conviction for a felony. Yes, it would clarify some ambiguous language in the charter, as nobody today knows exactly what's included in the phrase "crime or felony". However, it leaves a pretty big hole in that council members can no longer be removed after conviction for a serious misdemeanor. For example, if a council member is convicted of misdemeanor assault against another council member, he or she would still be allowed to serve out the term, with nothing short of a recall available to force him or her out. I say the council should go back to the drawing board on this one.

Question 2D would eliminate special elections to fill vacant council seats when there are only one or two vacancies. That's a good cost-saving goal. But the special elections are the result of a citizen initiative, and the council should not toss them out quite so radically. In this case, it would take three vacancies to trigger a special election. Under the proposed change we might have to go up to 16 months with a council short by one or two members. Again, the council is going too far to solve this problem.

Vote FOR Question 2B.
Vote AGAINST Question 2C.
Vote AGAINST Question 2D.