WaitingNovember 7th, 2007 by Steven Gardner
Little movement to report after today’s ballots counted were added to the mix.
Candidates who were in the lead Tuesday night are still leading.
Walt Washington in the county elections office said there are still about 20,000 ballots left to count.
Today confirmed the thought that people waited longer than usual to vote this year. The conventional wisdom is it was because people were undecided on some issues, so they waited. I wonder if that’s being overstated. My hunch, and I have no proof, is that people have gotten used to all-mail voting so they put it off like they do everything else. Then again, perhaps a year from now people will feel more urgent about dropping by the mailbox early.
But I think there’s another factor. I’ve seen your comments here and talked to people who said they wanted an experience close to what they used to get when they went to polling places.
Beyond procrastination and sentimental longings for days past, there may be some wisdom in waiting. Ballot initiatives are not going to change much, but information about candidates could. People still had their ballots when state Rep. Richard Curtis, R-La Center became known statewide. Many still had them when state Rep. Jim Dunn, R-Vancouver, got noticed as well. Neither of them were up for re-election and it’s likely both of them would have been more careful had they been. Nonetheless their examples make a case for hanging on to that pink envelope.
Playing devil’s advocate against myself, if you strongly favored Curtis or Dunn in an election, there’s a good chance you’re not going to pick a Democrat opponent when your candidate crumbles under a scandal. Same goes when cops find cash in a Democrat’s freezer, or the candidate dies.
But a voter wavering between candidates could easily be tilted by last-minute revelations.