Voting 2005

I was al­ways taught that vot­ing was a sa­cred du­ty and that the bal­lots are nec­es­sar­i­ly se­cret. My par­ents would nev­er tell me whom they vot­ed for when I asked, and I got the im­pres­sion that when I be­came en­fran­chised, I’d be ex­pect­ed to keep my trap shut too. The Welsh in me is go­ing to pre­vent that; and since this elec­tion cy­cle has been a big joke for the most part, I can’t re­al­ly blame the Plain Dealer for putting sto­ries about teenage blog­ging and syn­chro­nized foot­ball bap­tisms on the front page, above the fold, the day be­fore the elec­tion. You can’t do any­thing if there is no news. This elec­tion I’m much more ex­cit­ed about the is­sues on the bal­lot than the can­di­dates. That said, here is how I’m plan­ning on vot­ing:

Mayor:
I’m vot­ing for Frank Jackson, not be­cause I’m par­tic­u­lar­ly fond of any­thing he’s had to say at any time, ever, but be­cause, as an in­cum­bent Mayor, Jane Campbell has had an en­tire term in of­fice to seal up her re-elec­tion, through a va­ri­ety pol­i­cy and lead­er­ship means. Her weak­ness as a can­di­date has al­ready been apt­ly demon­strat­ed by the lack of con­fi­dence most peo­ple I’ve met have had in her. I vot­ed for Triozzi in the pri­ma­ry and prob­a­bly would have gone with Lynch oth­er­wise, I thought their ideas were a bit stronger and they seemed a lot less in­ter­est­ed in blovi­at­ing and more in­ter­est­ed in ac­tu­al in­ter­ac­tion. Jackson could very well be just as tire­some as the cur­rent may­or, but Cleveland needs change and un­til we get some lead­er­ship that in­cites it, I’m go­ing to keep vot­ing for change in the lead­er­ship.

Ward 13 Councilperson:
Well, I’m vot­ing for Joe Cimperman. I’ve met Mr. Cimperman sev­er­al times, al­most been hit by his Saturn on­ce [I wasn’t pay­ing at­ten­tion] and most im­por­tant­ly, I have no idea who this Laurel per­son run­ning again­st him is. The clos­est thing I’ve had to in­ter­ac­tion with Laurel is pick­ing up a dirty and wet piece of lit­ter on the side­walk in front of my apart­ment and see­ing that it was a fly­er from her. Plus, Joe has a con­dor.

Judge:
I’m not vot­ing for any­one for judge. I un­der­stand the rea­son­ing for vot­ing for judges, but there is no way I can tell which judge is wor­thy of my vote be­cause I nev­er see them cam­paign­ing or hear any­thing about their cam­paigns. If you don’t give me any­thing to judge, you wan­na-be judge, I’m not go­ing to judge any­thing. I could vote for Lynn McLaughlin-Murray since she lives right down the street from me, but then, so does Rocco Whalen. NO VOTE FOR YOU, JUDGES.

Issues 1 – 7:
I’m vot­ing yes to all of the­se, not be­cause I’m one of those vot­ers who is just go­ing to go all yea or all nay, but be­cause they all sound pret­ty rea­son­able based on my re­search. Also, my mom would strip the skin from the bot­tom of my feet if I vot­ed again­st a de­vel­op­men­tal-dis­abil­i­ty levy.

4 thoughts on “Voting 2005

  1. Let’s see… Issue 5 is the State Election Board thing, I think that shouldn’t be held by a par­ti­san elect­ed of­fi­cial. That is the one you thought was word­ed ex­tra poor­ly, and I agree, but I think a com­mis­sion will still func­tion bet­ter than a sin­gle per­son with oth­er du­ties. As for Issue 3, that’s the one I have the least vest­ed in­ter­est in. I’ve not read your Issue 3 post, but am do­ing so now. You’ve got till 3:30 this af­ter­noon to con­vince me. 😉

Comments are closed.