Now here is an interesting postulation to munch upon...

It seems very odd indeed that any politician, after changing to a new system of doing...whatever, would not wait a prescribed period of time for said system to stabilize prior to ordering for the complete recending of that system.

Let me illustrate with an example from my "expertise"... In electronics, there is a system called a switch. It many instances in which this system is in play for the common man, it is either a simple switch as say the switches in one's home, or the the software which reads the switch is hidden from the user and it is perceived as nothing more than a simple switch. When one gets into the deeper mechanics of electronic theory, as opposed to electrical theory, the former dealing with the micro level of electric principles and the latter the macro, one would notice that there is much more at work than just a simple switch. There is what is generally reffered to as "switch de-bouncing." Most individuals would presume that when a switch is on, the electricity flows, and conversly when the switch is 'switched' off the electricity immediately stops flowing. While in theory, this would be correct, in application, this is not the case. Due to various factors in electronic circuitry, mainly capacitors and inductors, the electricity can do some perceptively odd things. Capacitors hold a charge and then can release that charge over time once the switch has been flipped. This can be best illustrated through a small radio which can still be heard for a socond or two after it is unplugged. Inductors play a whole other ballgame however. When electricity is either applied or removed from an inductive circuit, a small magnetic field is created or destroyed respectively. The bigest factor is when the power is removed. This causes the magnetic field to collapse, generating an electrical spike. With delicate electronics, which say read the stoke of a key being pressed, this spike can cause missreads as the microprocessor may interperet these spikes, or 'bounces,' as extra button presses. This is where "switch de-bouncing" comes into play.

often times this is performed in the software of the signal processing microprocessor. In short, when a microprocessor detects a key pressed, it will read it as a press but then delay for a predetermined time. Sometimes as little as 200ths of a second, or 20 milliseconds, is required. This delay gives the circuit time to stabilize before the next time the microprocessor is allowed to read that switch. Immagine a ball that is dropped onto the ground. It is dropped once, but before it comes to rest on the ground, it may bounce several times, each time bouncing less high. If we were to count each time it hit the ground, we would end up counting several "drops" where only one "drop" was performed. To debounce this, we would drop the ball, count the first drop, and then wait, say 5 seconds in this instance. (depending on the ball) After the five seconds, we would continue our counting. At this point, if we calculated correctly the maximum time required for the ball to stabilize, it would have, in fact, stopped bouncing and stabilized.

Now, bringing my discussion back around to the topic of politics and more specifically, once again asking the voters to decide on county-wide or district-only voting. Why would someone try and repeal a system that has had only on itteration before even allowing for the whole process to stabilize. After only one try with the new district-only voting, it is hardly acceptable to think that the process has stabilized and that any perceived problems could be assertained in such a short period of experience. Secondly, this sort of backtracking is very unusual for a politician as can be deduced by looking at how many government programs there are which produce poor or no results at all but would hardly be deemed candidates for cancellation no mater how long they had been left to deploy themselves and their errant results.

Which begs the question, "What does Barbara Brenner have to gain from this?" or, "What is the REAL motivation behind this?"

(disclaimer: from this point on is mere speculation on my part, but is food for thought)

scenario A: Sam Crawford won the recent '07 election in the 2nd district through district only voting, barely... In '09 the other 2nd district seat, occupied by Laurie Caskey-Schreiber, comes up for election. Without looking at past voter turnout in favor of Caskey-Schreiber county-wide vs. district wide, I can only speculate on this: what are the odds for Caskey-Schreiber's re-election to the county council under the new system? Just in my head I tend to think that her margin of error is much, much slimmer, being a more liberal candidate in a more conservative area of the county. My theory is held tighter by the addition of scenario C.

scenario B: Chris Hatch was not elected from the 1st district to the Council in the recent '07 elections. He was beat out on that seat by Bob Kelly, a liberal who received much of his support from either out of town or from tribes. The 1st district is a more liberal area as it is dominated by the vote from south Bellingham. Chris Hatch, being of a more conservative nature, and likewise his supporters, was in the minority even though he ran a good campaign.

It would be interesting to speculate on the results of the two aforementioned races had their districts been reversed: Kelly vs. Hatch in 2nd and Mann vs. Crawford in 1st, or to immagine what would have been the results in either race had county-wide voting been in play

this leads me to my last scenario...

scenario C: Ward Nelson is a current councilman from the more liberal above mentioned 1st district, however he leans more conservative. It was interesting when Nelson came out in favor of county-wide elections, and subsequently, in favor of placing the issue back on the ballot. He was elected to his position under the previous county-wide elections and is up for re-election in '09. Doing a similar analysis of the previous vote as that proposed in relation to Caskey-Schreiber in the 2nd district, it would be interesting to see how he would stand under the new system. Was he able to retain his position in the past due to the inclusion of conservative votes from the north, and would he, through district-only voting be able to retain his seat. I wonder if this has something to do with why he seemed so fired up about the issue.

In conclussion, I don't see Brenner as particulary interested in the retention of Nelson in the chamber, though on this I may be wrong. But what is the nature of the working relationship between Brenner and Caskey-Schreiber? Could the urgency with which this was placed back on the ballot have something to do with the desired retention of Caskey-Schreiber in '09? If not, it would seem almost elementry that you would give a new system the chance to stabilize before you take the proverbial axe to it.

This is VB - That's the world through my mind...