Despite a thundering defeat of the levy, yesterday’s School District 271 election has two trustees keeping their elected positions. Given the apparently unhappiness of the taxpayer, the trustee’s victory makes no sense. That is, until you do some math.
The rule in elections is simple: name recognition.
Name recognition keept the trustees in place. In any election, the challengers must work harder to get their names out there. In this case, it would have been good for Dr. Francis and Mr. Mylan to show up at the meetings, to write editorials, and to let folks know that they represent a reasonable alternative and not just a new warm body.
But then there’s the math, which is the real reason why Ms. Zipperer and Mr. Fredrickson kept their seats.
First, remember that voting for a trustee is not only done by district but it required a special ballot (the “blue ballot” if you were one of the lucky few). The numbers show that most of the folks voting in their home district did request the separate trustee ballot.
Second, while I don’t mind that candidates are selected by district, I do not like that only those residents of the district get to vote for them. Without any at-large trustee positions, having only that same district vote for its trustee seems to present an unfair advantage to the incumbent.
Finally, the math: Out of 7,505 votes cast, Ms. Zipperer got only 443 votes to retain her office, or 5.9% of the votes. Mr. Fredrickson received 5.6%. That’s pathetic. Look at it graphically:
It would be foolish to call this a resounding assertion of faith in these two trustees. In fact, until the district changes its voting policy, this type of nonsense will continue.
Dan, since I don’t live in one of this year’s re-election districts, I wondered this: on the ballot, did Zipperer and Fredrickson’s names have “incumbent” next to them? Did the voter clearly know who was already in office and who was the challenger?
Also,many people emailed me to say they wanted to vote for the School Board, but were told “no” even though they lived in that district because they were trying to vote near their workplace that was outside that zone. It’s amazing that the challengers got any votes at all, the way the system is set up to heavily favor any incumbent!
Comment by mary — May 21, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Nope. The ballot just listed the names and instructions.
Comment by Dan — May 21, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
since when does any ballot have an incumbent or challenger designation? it is up to the voters to educate themselves and/or the candidates to inform the voters.
Comment by reagan — May 21, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
See, I think that’s purposeful. They should list those that are already on the board as incuments, so people know. If voters like what’s going on, they can vote for the status quo. If they want a change, they can vote for the challengers. The school district really has this system rigged: You can only run if you live in the zone, ok, that’s like the county commissioners. But only the people in that zone can vote for that board candidate–that’s a severe limitation. And those living in that zone can only vote for the board member if they vote at a school in that zone. The school district could list the zones on the voter list and allow those voters to vote for board members, no matter where they choose to vote. Also, Zipperer’s zone includes both downtown CdA and rural Mica Flats. That’s so unfair. The population center is downtown CdA, and Mica Flats often has a differing viewpoint, but they can never have representation of their views because they are always outvoted by downtown. This is an unfair system that must be changed!
Comment by mary — May 21, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
i think it is unconstitutional to print descriptions on the ballot. does the school district make the rules that govern the election of trustees or does the state board of ed? or the state legislature?
Comment by reagan — May 21, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Dr. Francis garnered a significant number of votes given essentially no campaigning and her being an unknown in this arena.
Had more voters been educated about her credentials and if more were known about the district’s special education problems, she would have been a shoo-in.
Comment by cda_foodies — May 22, 2008 @ 7:30 am
The area south of the Spokane River Bridge is rural and has traditionally had high voter turn out and informed voters. Yet our school board representative has avoided us out here. The Mica Flats Grange lobbied for being a voting site and it happened. We fought the foolish purchase of land on Mica Flats for a high school and won. Ms. Zipperer has been absent from all these efforts and yet she is suppose to represent us. Ms. Zipperer, if you are listening please come to our area and listen to us. We value education in our rural area…hard working rural hands built the school house that is now the Grange. We are a polite group of people so please come, listen to us, and represent our interests. If this is not done then it may be time to lobby for the rural area having its own representative. Perhaps we could be combined with the area on the east side of the lake to form a rural representative territory. Truly rural people have valuable things to say and a lot of good common sense!
Comment by Mama Bear — May 22, 2008 @ 7:40 am