We've been thinking about doing an update and this time we're looking for the followers of the the LB to formulate a retread or a full blown update to the council guide. A lot has happened in the last year.
One thing I've been wondering about is why people vote for our council members? I still don't understand how people could vote for both Jerome and Maggie on the same ballot? I couldn't image any of Maggie's campaign workers walking the streets for both Jerome and Maggie. No way, and vice versa, no way (Although, I'm not sure Jerome has a crew of people walking the streets for his candidacy).
Over at one of my favorite blogs a recent post really started me thinking about the reasons people vote for candidates. Here is an excerpt:
As a political scientist, it's always good for me to be reminded that party ID and the economy aren't the only things out there. Nugent's discussion also reminded me of the distinction between voting for someone whom you think they agree with you on most issues, and voting for someone whom you think will make good decisions. Two different ideas of representation.Which council members are getting votes because the voters think they agree with them on most issues? Which are getting votes because the voters think they make good decisions? Which are getting votes because they have name recognition?
On the other hand, the so-called fundamentals must strongly interact with attitudes on other issues. If you're already inclined not to support a candidate, there are often lots of reasons to vote against him or her. And, in a campaign, these issues are often evaluated comparatively. For example, maybe one reason it was hard for the corruption claim to stick to Barack Obama's (regarding his Chicago mansion), given that John McCain owned seven or so big houses himself. Another example that comes to mind is the battle-of-the-infidelity-rumors during the 1992 presidential election.