«   |   »

Madore Concedes

by lewwaters

Concession might be premature: Election results back in play after many new ballots surface

Extra ballots found of no help, no change in order of candidates.

Copied from David Madore’s facebook page, posted Aug 6, 2015 at approx. 11:15 PM

David Madore
2 mins • Edited •

Committed to work together for our community:

The election results have stabilized. As of today, a mere 84 votes separate the top two candidates (0.03% of the 250,276 ballots mailed) and 777 votes separate 2nd and 3rd place (0.3% of the 250,276 ballots mailed).

Only the top two candidates advance to the General Election in November. That means that our existing Clark County leadership team will remain intact and will be joined by two new members in January.

This team will represent these areas:

Jeanne Stewart – District 1 – Vancouver City (through 2018)
Julie Olson or Chuck Green– District 2 – west of Battle Ground (through 2019)
David Madore – District 3 – east of I-205, west of Camas (through 2016)
Tom Mielke – District 4 – East County / Rural (through 2016)

Here’s the map of those new charter defined districts: http://www.clark.wa.gov/elections/documents/maps/BOCCDistricts_Precincts.pdf

The new Council Chair will be:

Mark Boldt or Mike Dalesandro – county-wide (through 2018)
I will continue to fulfill the responsibility as your chairman this year to ensure that our citizen team is successful making wise choices with the public resources entrusted to us.

Flawed and fallible as we all are, we each serve at your pleasure. I will continue to rise each morning, salute, and report for duty Sir! Then go to work doing my best to help our team accomplish great things for our community.

Our job is to faithfully serve our bosses (that’s you) by diligently working together toward a positive vision for the future, with courtesy, honor, and good will.

Thank God! Yea Clark County!

If you are thinking of just writing his name in anyway, it will be a wasted vote, it won’t be counted. RCW 29A.24.311:

(3) No person may file as a write-in candidate where:

(a) At a general election, the person attempting to file either filed as a write-in candidate for the same office at the preceding primary or the person’s name appeared on the ballot for the same office at the preceding primary;

I will continue sitting it out, all responsibility lies with the RPCCGOP and RLC.

Posted on August 6, 2015 at 11:18 PM in Clark County Issues   |  RSS feed

Tags: , , ,

8 Comments to “Madore Concedes”

    
  1. craigsayre2014
    August 7, 2015 at 9:07 AM

    No thanks to the votes of the uninformed who will elect either a progressive Democrat or a liberal Republican in as County Chair by not voting for Madore.

    Like

  2. Friend of John Galt
    August 7, 2015 at 10:38 AM

    Frankly, It struck me as shear stupidity that all three existing council members filed to run for the Chair position. While each was certainly within their rights to do so, the result was to split the conservative vote (a total of 46.53% of votes cast) among three candidates, leaving the field open for the more liberal candidates to win the two general election positions.

    The flaw of this primary system is that it effectively disenfranchises voters who have too many choices.

    Delesandro won the “core” liberal/leftist votes (slightly more than 1/4 of those voting). Boldt managed to slither through, probably on the basis of his name recognition (as having previously been a commissioner) and may have pealed off the unreliable “Republicans” and “independents” who tend to be clueless in any event. Some of those votes would likely have gone to one of the other “prefers Republican” candidates had he not been in the race.

    Many years ago, (Lord help me) I lived in Berkeley, CA. City council elections (9 positions, at large) would often have 35 or 40 candidates running … (the range of political leaning ran from “moderate” to wacko left). Shortly after I was able to escape from Berkely, the hard left candidates formed a “slate” and ran as a group. They won … not because they were especially popular, but because they offered a unified program, while all those who didn’t like their program scattered their votes among the multitude of other candidates. (An opposing slate of more moderate (for Berkeley) candidates might have had a chance… but stupidity ruled the day, and Berkeley became ever worse than it already was…. There is a lesson here. Hopefully, the outcome of this election will better inform our local politicians on how to “go for” elective office.

    Each candidate should (1) consider how committed they are to the race. (2) They need to consider their likely opponents and decide if they can afford to put up a strong fight. In this election, Madore had the $$ to make a very strong showing. Did Mielke and Stewart have the money to be truly competitive? The results suggest that they did not.

    Truly it is a disappointment. At this point I have no idea how I will vote this fall. I absolutely can not support Dalesandro. I don’t know if I could hold my nose and vote for Boldt, especially after his stupidity with the CRC (and his lies to those who thought he”‘prefers Republican Party” really meant something). If a write-in for Madore is a “wasted” vote, then a write-in vote for “Mickey Mouse” would also be a wasted vote.

    What we really need is a “none of the above” choice on our ballots.

    Like

  3. Kndalai
    August 7, 2015 at 10:47 AM

    As I read it, a candidate who has filed as a write-in, has more leeway in votes cast needing less specificity by the voter in order to be counted.

    While Madore cannot file as a write-in candidate, one can still vote for Madore, and have that vote counted, so long as it’s clear which David Madore and for what position he is being voted for. (I suppose if “John Smith” was voted for, that’d be unclear as to which John Smith, hence, filing as a write-in would clear that up. Not so much an issue with “David Madore”).

    Seems a bit ambiguous and some clarification by the County auditor would help. For now, I’ll plan on voting for Madore.

    Like

  4. lewwaters
    August 7, 2015 at 11:23 AM

    Concession might be premature: Election results back in play after many new ballots surface

    Unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibilities.

    Like

  5. Friend of John Galt
    August 7, 2015 at 12:10 PM

    The old “more ballots found” explanation! In this case, it seems less suspicious than the “found” boxes of ballots that have appeared in some of the state-wide offices and/or in “recounts” that have occurred elsewhere.

    Fortunately, the terms on the local ballot state the deadline is a “postmark by” date. I once lived in a place where the mailed ballots had the notation: “Must be received by 5:00 PM on the date of the election.” Even though I always mailed my ballot way ahead of time, I was worried that the post office might screw up and leave me disenfranchised through no fault of my own. (I once owned a business that did a lot of ‘bulk mail’ for ourselves and our clients. The Post Office’s operations were mind-blowing.)

    Like

  6. lewwaters
    August 7, 2015 at 12:24 PM

    My understanding is they were found sitting in the Portland Post Office all of our mail goes to for sorting befre being delivered back here.

    Screwy system to send all of our mail there first, but what we have.

    Like

  7. lewwaters
    August 7, 2015 at 2:00 PM

    It’s over, the extras ballots changed nothing in the order.

    Like

  8. Carolyn Crain
    August 7, 2015 at 2:43 PM

    It is against Washington State law for a vote to be counted on a write-in if the candidate failed in a primary race in which the candidate was a regularly registered candidate.

    Like

    
%d bloggers like this: