Politicians pushing slates are attempting to override voters choosing the best individual candidates based on their merits, instead asking them to go "all in" for a like-minded group hoping for a majority council position, empowering them to set up their leader as chair and with enough votes to potentially railroad through whatever initiatives they concoct among themselves. In the previous council's term we had way too much division and us-versus-them bitterness - notably, but not exclusively, around Bill 2491 (Ordinance 960) - and an elected slate of five or six council members takes this style of politics to the next level. Candidates on a slate tacitly purport to having the same platform and stances of most issues and are therefore unlikely to be offering diverse perspectives on the many issues the council faces - they wouldn't be a slate if they did. Slates are going to view others on the council as adversaries rather than colleagues, focused on winning rather than doing the right thing for the interests of all.
It isn't hard to see why this is happening as a pure power play if you look at the primary election results (below). The top four or five candidates are in fairly secure positions to make the cut in the general, but positions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are very much still up for grabs. Even positions 11 and 12 have shot because they are only separated from the next higher vote getting candidate by less than a hundred votes.
| Top Seven | Must move up to be elected | ||
| Candidate | Votes | Candidate | Votes |
| RAPOZO | 9,592 | KUALII | 5,525 |
| KAGAWA | 9,387 | PERRY | 4,902 |
| KANESHIRO | 8,173 | CHOCK | 4,672 |
| YUKIMURA | 7,252 | BRUN | 4,577 |
| FURFARO | 6,868 | COWDEN | 4,524 |
| HOOSER | 6,642 | DeCOSTA | 4,243 |
| BYNUM | 5,839 | LARANIO | 3,754 |
Votes needed to pick up to move into position 7 and make the cut:
| 157 | 0.81% |
| 469 | 2.42% |
| 584 | 3.02% |
| 631 | 3.26% |
| 658 | 3.40% |
| 798 | 4.12% |
| 1043 | 5.39% |
Since Tim Bynum is sitting in position 7 (the lowest finish to make the cut to be elected) these numbers are how many votes he hypothetically loses that the lower candidate might pick up. This is simplistic but gives an idea how close it is: the percentages are of ballots case in the primary. Note that the general election almost surely will have greater turnout so if anything the percentage swings needed to rearrange candidates around position 7 is just a few percentage points.
In general these slates are promoted often by word of mouth, on social media, or other private means, but word has definitely gotten out. I don't want to publicize these slates too much by linking to them but I do want to provide some concrete details to be crystal clear on what I am talking about. There is not much on the web I could find, but here are some references to the couple different slates. At last weeks west side candidate forum I was very surprised to hear two candidates specifically mention their joining in a slate with other candidates they named that they would be banding with if elected.
Finally, it's important to remember that candidates may not necessarily want to be named on a slate: anyone can make a list of names and promote it. However, when the candidates themselves organize joint events and participate or speak about banding together, they are committing and personally I would avoid voting for anyone doing so. Also, to avoid any misunderstanding, organizations endorsing several candidates as individuals based on their merits is quite a different thing than saying "vote for these five or six names" which is what I mean by a slate.
Kauai county council members are elected "at large" meaning there are no districts as there are for state representatives. This means each council member is expected to server the interests of all, not just their supporters or their side of the island.
It seems clear that forming slates is a strategy to avoid a diverse council by loading it with like-minded candidates, even if they individually may not be fully qualified. Weaker candidates might see joining a slate as a way to get elected by riding on the shirttails of others, but doing so they sacrifice their independence. We don't need council chairs filled by people you are just going to vote like someone else on the council tells them. That's not the kind of council I want, and I would just urge anyone considering this approach to think very carefully.
I'd like to clarify that while the so-called "westside" "pro-GMO slate" may or may not have been organized and endorsed by the candidates (I'm not sure but I did hear it from some of the members) the five candidate anti-pesticide and GMO "slate" was an independent, grassroots-organized effort and as a matter of fact all of the "Keep Kaua`i Alive- Vote for Only Five" group-endorsed candidates spoke out against "slates" and had nothing to do with its formation.
ReplyDeleteAlso I wanted to point out the longstanding tradition of the "plunking" phenomenon on Kaua`i due to the "seven at large" nature of the election. Many people do use all seven of their votes, only selecting the candidates they really want so as not to chance having one that they only "sort of" like beat out their favorite candidate for the final spot. This greatly paid off for Hooser and Chock. It sort of lends itself to "slates" whether the candidates like it or not.