It may just be me, but the upcoming election for state and local offices and initiatives is seeming more dramatic than any I've seen. This may just be because I've been paying a lot more attention this time around. The race for mayor of Seattle, in particular, has seen some entertaining developments.
I've written here before about Washington state's
"top two" primary system. This mayor's race has been a case study of the strange results that this system can bring about. The incumbent, Democrat Greg Nickels, finished a close third, and thus did not make it to the general election. The "top two" were Joe Mallahan and Mike McGinn, both of whom are reasonably liberal Democrats who have never held public office. It was basically a three-way split, with less than a 2.5% gap between the first- and third-place candidates. Nothing like a one-party election. Anyway, it seems from the outside that both candidates were planning on running against Nickels and have been struggling to emphasize their differences.
Mike McGinn did this by focusing on his opposition to the deep-bore tunnel that Seattle and the state government have settled on to replace our aging and dangerous Alaskan Way Viaduct. To give the full background on this issue would take ages. For anyone who is unfamiliar, you only need to know that it is a very contentious and complex issue that has evolved over a number of years and seemed to finally be decided.
McGinn's pitch was that as mayor, he would fight the tunnel as a expensive, ill-conceived, and environmentally dangerous project. Mallahan, as far as I can tell, was never enthusiastic about the tunnel. It was more that he considered it a "done deal."
McGinn was very successful at making the election a referendum on the tunnel. Too much so, in my opinion. A lot of other issues have been drowned out by the focus on the tunnel. It also led to a strange landscape of support, with labor groups, business interests, environmentalists, and bike people (their own political bloc in this town) ending up in all sorts of odd configurations.
Then, a few days ago, it all changed. McGinn
publicly stated that, as mayor, he would accept the City Council's decision on the tunnel. In essence, he changed the central position around which he built his campaign.
What is interesting to me is the timing. This election is being held entirely by mail-in ballot. The ballots were all supposed to arrive last week. McGinn reversed his position a few days ago. Doubtless, a fair number of people had already voted for him, based in part on his tunnel stance. This is like switching a core policy position mid-day on election day. I have never heard of such a thing. I am trying to fight the cynical part of my brain that says that McGinn timed his move based on behavioral data about when different kinds of voters mail in their ballots.
It would be easy for me to let this strange move decide my vote. This dodgy behavior should be discouraged. Still, I am pretty likely to vote for McGinn, who seems more engaged and knowledgeable on many issues than his opponent. His strategy around replacing the viaduct
did seem like a weak point to his plans (although I am no big fan of the tunnel, either). So, maybe things will work out just the way he planned.