a city seat

A part of me secretly hates politicians, and the other side, wants to be one.

After extensively covering a rather crazy election(s) for a city council seat, I have to tip my hat (if I had one) to one fellow who, after fighting hard, came out on top.

This should-have-been November race didn't end in the eleventh month. After allegations of vote-buying and a tied recount and well cars being keyed and people being wrongly persuaded to vote, a new election was ordered for March. That election didn't end in a tie — many of us at the newspaper, and many in city government took a big sigh when one person was left standing.

But that sigh wasn't just because the whole process was over. That sigh, at least for me, was because I believed the better man - or should I say human being - won. The best thing about this guy, is time after time when I interviewed him for a story, he said that although he certainly wanted to win, he wasn't fighting to win the seat, he was fighting for the principle.

The principle of democracy.
This man was outspoken about the perils of One-Stop-Voting, a process that election boards have used to make voting easier and more convenient and boost voter turn-out. However, as the city councilman said often, it can easily be manipulated.

“One-Stop Voting is a disgrace when it’s abused,” he said. “The concept is fine, but a lot of work needs to be done for it to be effective.”

And he's right. Democracy does not involve a U-Haul filled with voters who are promised an ice-cream after they vote. And there is a phrase "with intentions of returning" that the election board used to uphold a man's right to vote — this being a man who only by his testimony (which fluctuated on its own) lived at a certain house for a time. He said he didn't live there now, and other renters who he did not know were currently occupying the home. He said if they ever leave, he plans on returning... even though he's lived outside of Raleigh (where he never voted) for the past four years, and before that lived in an area outside the voting rights for the precinct of this election.

Hmm. Let's think on that.

Did he really just want the right to vote, or was there something else behind this. Oh wait, I forgot to mention, he was related to the opposing candidate.

All I can say is that if a politician, who is human and will therefore screw up sometimes, can try with all his might (literally ... not many would be willing to deal with all the junk he and his family dealt with) to uphold a basic foundation this country was built upon, thank God that politician is doing what he's doing.

I'm not saying I've always agreed with everything he's said. Nor can I promise I always will. But if he has the character to understand that even if vote buying has always gone on, he's not going to take part of it, in fact he's going to fight that mentality. Because to him, democracy does not involve dollars, but intelligence.

People need to inform themselves about the candidates and their platforms. Not once did he say, "I want all my voters to get out and vote for me."

What he said, "I encourage the people to get out and look at the issues and then vote."

And if nothing else, that is certainly worth a big long sigh that says, you know what, not all politicians are out for themselves. In fact, those I've met on the local level, are really there because they are trying to improve the area they live in ... whether they agree with other politicians, or the media, or not.

So kudos to this politician
and maybe one day
I'll lay down
the paper
and pen
and
try
to
uphold
democracy
in a similar fashion.