A couple of bloggers have mentioned in their comments that few of the columns on SJI have focused on the local elections that are taking place today. Maybe that is because so little noise is being made on the local front that it can more accurately be classified as a whimper. (This may be due to the last local election that gripped the voters and the media.) Also contributing to this quietness is the political backdrop of the gigantic drama of the Presidential race. So what happens when it’s so quiet you can hear a pin drop? Do people care less if there is no drama?
What I do know is that there is a slight hum coming from the Shirakawa race. I have received many anti-Shirakawa pamphlets in the mail, and have to say that the tactics really caught my eye. A bald man in a pinstriped suit with his arms crossed and a picture of George Shirakawa Jr. in his pocket. Then the words: “IS GEORGE SHIRIKAWA THE NEXT RON GONZALES?” Harsh words, but the sad thing is, it got my attention and I proceeded to read the entire thing, front to back. I am not saying that the negative campaigning would sway me one way or another, but it actually got me to pay attention to the man and the issues at hand.
So does that mean that negative campaigning ever has a place in modern elections? In the past, I have been against the idea of negative campaigning and the tactics that people use to get in office. But I am also one of a small minority who doesn’t take what they read at face value. I research and read for myself before I make a decision. Unfortunately, not all voters are that thorough. I feel negative campaigning will always have its place, whether we like it or not. I just hope it doesn’t keep good people from running and sway lazy voters who don’t want to read for themselves.
But the larger question is: How do we get the general public to care when there isn’t a major race or major drama going on? Should we have fewer elections so that people have to spend less time reading up and getting involved? Sometimes a little drama may be the ticket. But for this election, I see very little.
Thank you for doing a column on this! Great job, and well said. Like you I do a lot of research before voting. I won’t work for a candidate’s campaign that unfairly slams their rival. Unfortunately, I have seen candidates who have had no choice but to hit back with negative campaigning because their rival started it.
The most professional race I’ve seen conducted was between Yeager, Le Zotte, and one other very qualified candidate. (I’m sorry I can’t remember her name, but I think she was from the City Council in Sunnyvale, not sure.) The three of them ran a respectful campaign. They ran solely on their qualifications. It was very hard to choose, but I really like Linda so I supported her.
I don’t think very many caring unknown people run because they don’t have the money, the support, or want to be beat up in media. The media is unfair in its coverage, and ignores them so they fall by the way side. If they are running against an incumbent, they rarely ever stand a chance of winning.
If the trend I’m seeing in today’s polls is correct, I think people want change and they want it badly. I think they are sick of the negative campaigning and are voting for change. I’ve got my paws crossed that change for the better is what we get!
Our council district race has so little noise because the candidates have nothing to say. They all parrot the same key words such as “smart growth”, “education”, “transportation” etc… but have no plans for any substantial improvements to our city. We need real leaders, not drama to get people excited about the election.
#2- Steve,
“We need real leaders, not drama to get people excited about the election.”
Amen to that!