Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Nevada City City Council - the blogger is In.

Tue June 13 update: Barbara's lead has widened, it appears she'll win (see new post).
Previous updates at end of this post.

-------------
Original post, with edit:

...or so it appears, from the vote count reported on the county website: as of 11:45pm Tue, with 4 of 4 precincts reporting, it's:

484 Sheila Stein
420 Barbara Coffman
416 Kerry Arnett
363 Conley Weaver

The two incumbents go down, the two challengers come in.

And - once again, if you ever wonder if your vote really matters* - note the 4 votes separating Barbara from Kerry.

Opinion:
Yes, whether or not a candidate is a blogger shouldn't be a top deciding factor. Yes, we should value forward thinking, visionary candidates who value and want to conserve what's special about our town. But part of being forward thinking is to prepare for what's coming, and - IMHO - it is not going to be pleasant, and we're not going to be better off than we are now; and a no-brainer, in terms of preparing for a difficult future, is to get our affairs in order and our infrastructure in shape. And it hasn't been happening.

--------
Updates:

Wed June 7:
Jumped the gun, the fat lady's not singing yet - it seems absentee ballots that were handed in at the polls on Election Day have still not been tallied. ( details here, or likely soon on Barbara Coffman's blog)
And predicting final results is fraught with uncertainty: while absentee voters as a whole are typically more conservative, and thus would be more likely to increase Barbara's 4-vote lead over Kerry, my guess is that absentee voters who never get around to mailing their ballots in might differ significantly from this norm.
And not just statistically significantly(?) either.

Time will tell.

Thurs June 8:
Barbara, you are sleeping on the job, and you don't even have the job yet; it's time to update your weblog!.

Sat. June 10 update: the Barbara-vs.-Kerry race is(was) still in play; 260 Nevada City ballots remain to be counted, says Yubanet.
at

1 comment:

  1. Anna Haynes6/09/2006 12:09 PM

    Russ, I agree. The question is, to what degree does the 'evolutionary sociology' of govt act like the 'evolutionary sociology' of science?
    (i.e. do we need a changing of the guard, in order to 'steer' in the direction that the new evidence points)

    (Typically older scientists have greater resistance to changing their minds, so with new thought/data (e.g. the advent of Darwin's Origin of Species) that produces a sea-change of understanding, the final shift in scientific consensus comes not from adherents to the old views changing their minds - they don't - but from attrition as they leave the field. For example Agassiz never came to accept evolution.)

    ReplyDelete

Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...

Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.

* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.

If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.

New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)

Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.