I'm the "third candidate" running for State Senate in the 11th District, and although I am well-credentialed and progressive, nobody gives me a chance in hell of finishing in the top two. The collective wisdom is doubtless correct -- I have no realistic chance because I have neither raised nor spent any money, and because I refuse to engage in "politics as usual" activities such as going door-to-door, stuffing mailboxes, or generally engaging in unabashed self-promotion.

Still, I have done well professionally because I think outside the box and am willing to try things that others will not. In this context, my belief there is a possibility (albeit slim) that the new "Top Two" primary system will scramble the usual patterns and will induce many independent persons like myself to vote in a different direction than normally exists. If this is true, then I may defy all expectations by proving to be a viable candidate.

Like I say, there is little chance I will survive the primary, but if I do, it will prove that the traditional system that caters to and serves political hacks such as Margarita Prentice IS vulnerable, and that under the right circumstances, everyday persons like myself, who are sickened by partisan politics and gamesmanship, CAN get elected. While improbable, this result would be wonderful for the people of this state.

Scott McKay
Candidate for State Senate, 11th District

Gosh, Scott, are we supposed to divine from your name or your bitter views that you're somebody to vote for? If you're unwilling to engage as "politics as usual," how DO you connect with voters. I would suggest that whining isn't the way.

I'll be at the Godard Film Fest at SIFF Cinema. Interesting to see how the Top Two Primary worked out - personally, I found it confusing, and if that's the case, I bet a lot of other people did too.

But I had fun voting for myself and dropping off my permanent absentee ballot at the nearby polling place where my son is a poll worker at.

Thanks David. I'll be in transit tonight on a tight schedule, but appreciate the opportunity to "playback" the chat later, which I've enjoyed before.

If YOU can't participate in the live chat tonight, the thread will close with a "playback" feature so you can read the comments and conversation later in the order they happened.
Nice feature :-)

Good luck to all.

Will, I'm not a fan of the top 2 system, but what exactly is confusing about voting for whoever you want and the top two people moving on to the general election?

and because I refuse to engage in "politics as usual" activities such as going door-to-door, stuffing mailboxes, or generally engaging in unabashed self-promotion. - 11th District Candidate

So in other words, you're not willing to do the legwork, craft a message and raise your name awareness to the public. And yet you blame 'the system' for why you'll finish last.

Good luck with that.

It is fascinating that my decision not to raise or spend money or to engage in "politics as usual" tactics such as going door-to-door or stuffing mailboxes (see below) seems to offend some people. E.g., see the comments below that my post constitutes "whining" or that I am "blaming the system."

Huh?

I do not understand where these folks are coming from. The bottom line is that I am a guy who although well credentialed and conscientious, does not have the temperament or desire to engage in self-promotion, and who is just tired of the constant politicalization of our world. For this reason, I decided to simply put my name on the ballot to see what happens. Thus, it is a grand experiment to see whether everyday people like me get elected on the local level without campaigning.

I do not whine; I do not complain. And I certainly will not be upset or surprised to lose. Indeed, I expect it. But the bottom line is that my candidacy will either confirm or deny my hypothesis, which in some small way, may contribute to the body of knowledge about Seattle voters, which in turn helps to make us all more informed.

So what is the problem here? Isn't my candidacy a good thing? Why does this offend some of you? Please enlighten us.

Scott McKay
Candidate for State Senate, 11th District

Scott,
Let me come back with a question. Bill Jones files for office but says he won't do anything other than file and say he won't reach out to tell voters who he is and what he stands for, such is he in favor of more taxes or less? What would he pay for in the way of governor services? All those things legislators do.

Why should I vote for him? I should vote for him because...?

Scott McKay,

It is not that it is offensive, Scott, it is that it is soooo stupid.

There is only two ways to get elected for that seat; 1) spend more money than your opponent, 2) wear out shoes walking your district.

Both ways are very effective. If you are too above walking your district and communicating with the people you are going to be representing, then who in the heck would vote for you?

I don't care what you've done with your career, what I want to know is how you're going to do for your district if elected.

If you don't spend money to get your message out, how do you propose voters to know whether or not you're a good candidate for the job? Just because you say so?

Scott, I think you need to get an attitude adjustment, and for crying out loud, don't ever run for office again until you do!

P:

Your point is a good one -- that you would not vote for me without more information. This means that you are a conscientious, informed voter.

Will people vote for a candidate who has done nothing more than put out a statemetn in the voter's pamphlet? Certanly some will -- we'll find out precisely how many tonight. Again, I find this a fascinating excercise.

Incidentally, if I somehow survive the primary, I WILL do what you suggest. In other words, I will ensure that I have very information out there as to my positions on all substantive issues.

Scott,

No offense, but your experiment is just plain stupid, and one that carries out such an experiment that is so ridiculous is not worthy of a vote.

I am going to sit at work and do nothing, I expect that I will be fired, but it will be interesting to confirm or deny my hypothesis....duh.

If you want to change the political climate, you have to get elected, if you want to be elected, you have to play the game.

Scott:

I see, this is some sort of experiment. Well, good luck!

It has been my opinion that the American voter, somehow, always seems to be pretty good arbiters of who they want to represent them.

Sure, there are always people who get elected that should never have gotten a single vote; just look at how often Jim McDermott gets re-elected. But then, considering how ridiculously stupid his constituents appear to be, they got precisely the kind of representation they wanted.

While your "experiment" is weird, it is not without precedence. There have been dogs elected to public office - so what? Making a mockery of the voters is a long-standing tradition with Democrats.