Ugly Politics? Welcome to Mecklenburg.
It’s been an ugly two days on a couple of Mecklenburg County boards.
On Monday, the new town of Huntersville board was sworn in and shortly thereafter returning mayor Jill Swain called for a vote on her committee recommendations…recommendations that altered tradition and left top vote getters off of important committees.
House Guest Rick Short discusses the situation HERE.
Tollfreenc.com also chimes in with the following observations.
It didn’t take long for controversy to rear its ugly head in Huntersville. Shortly after Thom Tillis swore in the new Huntersville Commissioners, Mayor Jill Swain asked for a vote on her committee “recommendations.”
Other towns give the voter a voice on where officials will serve. For instance, the top vote-getter in Cornelius serves on the critical CRTMPO (formerly MUMPO) committee. Not so Huntersville. Swain makes the appointments… on her own.
The result: despite dropping from the top vote-getter to fifth, despite this egregious action against the people she is supposed represent, Sarah McAulay is back on CRTMPO.
In fact, the Julian/Neely/McAulay slate fared pretty well. Out of thirteen committee assignments, they were appointed to ten even though they finished three/four/five in the election.
Swain limited the non-slate candidates to a single committee each. Mayor Pro-Tem Melinda Bales was appointed to the ineffectual LNTC. Local businessman Danny Phillips, the second highest vote-getter, was appointed to the Arts & Sciences committee. Freshman Rob Kidwell was appointed to the Olde Huntersville Historical Society.
Meanwhile McAulay will serve on three committees, Julian and Neely two each. These include powerhouse assignments like Planning, Chamber of Commerce, and CRTMPO. Swain decided to leave vacant the CHEC (Community of Huntersville Education Collaborative), a seat Melinda Bales had filled. Bales, the only commissioner with school-age children, had served on the CHEC previously and has been credited with rebuilding and revitalizing it.
Perhaps because of that last point Bales spoke up forcefully about the impropriety of the whole process. But in a sign of things to come, Bales, Phillips and Kidwell voted against Swain’s recommendation and Julian, Neely and McAulay voted for. Swain broke the tie.
What does this have to do with toll lanes on I-77? We caught a glimpse of how Huntersville politics works. The results speak for themselves: the voice of the voter is ignored after Election Day.
Changing of the Gaurd from the Limosine Liberals in the County to the Urban Liberals. Cotham, Helms, et al wanted their unassailable Democrat Majority and have acheived it. They are just now realizing they have no Power over it.
The only winner I see in the continued saga of Progressive politics in Mecklenburg County are those that have already fled to more hospitable locales.
I think it’s safe to assume that “Mecklenburg Flight” will continue and may very well accelerate.
Buy my house, please! I want to get the heck out!
Maybe conservatives should select electable candidates if they don’t like having minority representation.
Edwin Peacock and Ken Harris were far from conservative, yet by your definition “electable”. You see what happened to them.
Interesting.
The Black Democrats are similar to the TEA Party in that they are part of mainstream political party, in their case, the Democrats. They are only recently beginning to understand the uses and abuses of power, which we will see happen in Charlotte/Mecklenburg now. To them, it doesn’t matter about the political beliefs of the person, so long as he votes the correct way when it counts. Their supporters are much the same – voting for the, obviously, litmus tested candidate no matter if they will help or hinder the individual who voted.
As my friend Jay reminded us this AM, their goal is to take from you to give to their friends. Redistributionist as their great (he wishes) leader.
Ed Peacock ran a fine campaign, but 1) Ed Peacock would not be electable as a Republican in rural NC, he would not make it out of the primaries. And 2) he would have won here were it not for the association with lunatics in Raleigh ruining the state and the crazies in Washington shutting down the country. Conservatives are in a large minority in this town.
Yet the uber-conservatives sit in their echo-chambers and keep telling the ever dwindling crowds to keep heart and stay pure, and keep moving to the right ’cause we’re not conservative enough. Republicans are not a minority in Huntersville. That means a lot of theirs either switched sides or didn’t bother to show up. Wonder why that is?
Ed Peacock wouldn’t make in rural NC thankfully, but that’s not where he was running for office was it? And I don’t think his losing had anything to do with his being a Republican as it pertains to any association with Raleigh. I think it had to do with the “color” of Charlotte politics coming to reflect the fastest growing demographic in the city, which is exactly what a representative government is supposed to do. That said, like many others, the faster I can get out of here the better, and good luck to all that I leave behind. We’ve all seen this movie before and I don’t care to stick around for the second act.
Cotham lost her chairmanship for the same reason Peacock lost his election.
Choosing leaders that are electable versus choosing those best qualified for the job is the entire basis for why government has never, and will never, be the best possible mechanism for doing anything. Thanks for pointing that out, Zon.
Depends on your definition of mechanism, your definition of government, and your definition of best.
Not really. My point is valid regardless of one’s political persuasion, the issues at hand, the times or how one chooses to define the words.
There can only be one best person at any given thing by definition of the word. Likewise, there can only be one best “all around” person at any given number of things at any given time.
However, there can be numerous electable people. True, the best person for the job may also be electable, but then again he/she may not be.
Ti illustrate, let’s assume for the moment the best person for the job is also electable, but three other people that run are also electable though they are not the best. This gives us a 75% chance that the best person for the job won’t be elected.
On the other hand, if the best person for the job is not electable, then we have a 0% chance the best person will be chosen.
Therefore, if we follow your advice and choose candidates on their “electability” regardless of their qualifications we are assuredly guaranteed to end up with less-than-the-best such as Bush, Obama, and the also-ran candidates we’ve seen in recent decades.
Unfortunately, politics rarely attracts the best people for the job, and more times than not, the worst. And yet we, the idiot voters, continue to hold our nose and rationalize voting for the “lesser of two evils” based on their “electability”.
And we wonder why we’ve ended up where we are politically.
I should have also mentioned that most voters are not any more qualified to determine who is the best candidate any more than they are in choosing the best mechanic for an oil change or the best person to give them a heart transplant. Often times we think, feel, or believe we know who is best and we counter that against who we also believe is electable, but if we’re honest with ourselves very, very few do the necessary due diligence to choose the actual best. In that regard, we – as a people – would be better off if the majority of people would simply admit their ignorance and not vote. At least that way they wouldn’t contribute to our demise.
You didn’t mention political persuasion. You said government will never be the best possible mechanism for doing anything. With literally hundreds of thousands of different governments that have been in existence, and ‘anything’ encompassing well, everything; and ‘best’ even has no criteria. Your whole statement is subjective nonsense.
Zon uses the term subjective nonsense to describe something KS writes, with which he disagrees. That is funny. Most of what Zon writes is subjective and, IMHO, nonsense. A CLASSIC case of pot/kettle/black. Ol’ Zon needs to see the shrink about his delusional superiority complex. I’m sure there are pills for it which he can get at an everyday low price due to ObamaCare, which will bring him back to reality. Oops – my bad – I’ve also noticed he’s not interested in reality. Probably believes in AGW too.
I didn’t mention political persuasion on purpose. Why? Because it doesn’t apply and it’s not necessary to the support of my statements.
Probably the best example I can give you, Zon, that you can relate to is that stinging feeling you experienced on the playground when you weren’t picked until dead last. In your case you were neither the best nor the most electable. See how that works? Even third graders understand who the best is. Maybe that’s why your personality is the way it is, but of course you’d think that was just subjective nonsense.
The whole idea of “electability” is disappointing. What makes someone “electable”? How “cool” they are?
We shouldn’t have government decided by American Idol competition. With an ever increasing segment of the population so ridiculously uneducated on issues, I agree with Kayser and wish some people just wouldn’t vote. That goes for people on both sides of the spectrum.
“I vote for this person because God told me to” is just as invalid as “I vote for this person because they share my skin color”.
The ideal of a democratic republic, as differentiated from a direct democracy, is that the people should decide who represents them in the law making bodies. Perhaps now with the ubiquity of the internet, there should be some requirement for making information available, of which one has to prove he is aware of, and has studied to some extent, before being allowed to vote. But that would preclude some people from voting. So. They had their chance.
It is the same with voter ID. If you’re not capable of getting an ID why should you be allowed to vote?
The concern turns out to be the same.in both cases. Politicians are selling themselves and thus are not interested in your educated, rational vote but your subjective, emotional vote. So to limit someone by proving they are qualified will defeat the purpose of having everyone vote. We wouldn’t need money for campaigns anymore. But who could we trust to disseminate the accurate information to the prospective voters.
No, it seems the system we have works – except the representatives, too often, begin to think they’re special and thus priviledged.
Term limits and no special retirement or other benefits would seem to be the correct thing to do. Beyond that, an annual examination of their financial situation might enable us to find the crooks.