The article did mention that about half had been counted, so unless a massive shift occurs in the second half (which would be pretty odd, statistically), it's no on both.
The counts for viaduct replacement had less than 2000 votes separating the two positions with roughly 70,000 ballots counted. All-mail elections are unprecedented in this state - who's to say the early voters aren't the statistical anomaly?
It's not like it matters how the vote turns out anyway. The Governor's going to say what happens, the Mayor's going to whine about it, and then whatever plan gets chosen will be re-voted upon eleventy-seven times through the public initiative process thanks to Seattle's historical and enduring devotion to self-sabotage in its own infrastructure planning.
I take the fact that Nickels, Licata, and Steinbrueck have already responded as indication that the vote information they're receiving does not make a trend shift look likely. I'm not going to take a firm position that such a shift won't occur- it does happen, of course, though rarely- but I'm also not going to expect it. I am certainly not the one to say that the early voters aren't the statistical anomaly, but there are folks whose place it is to make exactly that prediction.
And yes, I'm not too hopeful that this vote will make too much difference. I simply like to see voters being obstinate like this- particularly in ways I agree with. My pleasure in the results is wholly selfish.
I'm happy that no/no won, but this was either a terribly thought-out election or a brilliant piece of anti-democratic political engineering. Consider: at this point, 45% voted yes on viaduct/no on tunnel, 30% voted yes on tunnel/no on viaduct, and 25% voted no/no. (This assumes that yes/yes votes are down at the noise level.) Something close to 75% voted for expanding road capacity in some form.
Agreed, this is not a deciding victory for surface/transit, and I don't claim it as one. But surface/transit hit the popular consciousness so late in the process, this is a very positive step. It gives us momentum, however, and time in which to really convince people. I think there are a lot of people who will favor surface/transit once they realize it really is a possibility.
And yes, this was a ridiculously designed election, on just about every level. But had either of the options achieved a majority they'd be making political hay from it, so I don't have any qualms about doing it myself. :)
However, the longer it takes to make a decision, the harder it will be to actually build anything, so, by default, the surface/transit option just has to obstruct the other options long enough . . .
If the City politicians think it will continue to get them elected, they will fight a new viaduct tooth and nail . . . and although the state could theoretically pull rank, in practice the City can delay indefinitely.
Hurray for political gridlock.
(I myself voted yes for tunnel, as the better option of the two. Disapointed the tunnel lost worse than the viaduct--not that it "lost" just that more people disliked it than the viaduct.)
Yeah, I do wish Seattle was a bit better at making decisions. I certainly cursed that tendency enough when Sound Transit was tottering. This time it just happens to be working in my favor.
Makes me wonder if it can be harnessed for good in the future. Just need to make sure every big project I don't like has a shiny, impractical alternative to cancel it out...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Counting chickens, etcetera
Re: Counting chickens, etcetera
*cough*deweydefeatstruman*cough*
It's not like it matters how the vote turns out anyway. The Governor's going to say what happens, the Mayor's going to whine about it, and then whatever plan gets chosen will be re-voted upon eleventy-seven times through the public initiative process thanks to Seattle's historical and enduring devotion to self-sabotage in its own infrastructure planning.
Re: *cough*deweydefeatstruman*cough*
And yes, I'm not too hopeful that this vote will make too much difference. I simply like to see voters being obstinate like this- particularly in ways I agree with. My pleasure in the results is wholly selfish.
no subject
no subject
And yes, this was a ridiculously designed election, on just about every level. But had either of the options achieved a majority they'd be making political hay from it, so I don't have any qualms about doing it myself. :)
no subject
If even the local news can't make out the message of the vote, then I daresay that it's still a failure at this point.
no subject
However, the longer it takes to make a decision, the harder it will be to actually build anything, so, by default, the surface/transit option just has to obstruct the other options long enough . . .
If the City politicians think it will continue to get them elected, they will fight a new viaduct tooth and nail . . . and although the state could theoretically pull rank, in practice the City can delay indefinitely.
Hurray for political gridlock.
(I myself voted yes for tunnel, as the better option of the two. Disapointed the tunnel lost worse than the viaduct--not that it "lost" just that more people disliked it than the viaduct.)
-B.
no subject
Makes me wonder if it can be harnessed for good in the future. Just need to make sure every big project I don't like has a shiny, impractical alternative to cancel it out...