Brad Hutchison wrote:
With apologies, I'll make a sports analogy. The Colts and Patriots are the 2 best teams in the NFL this year. Because they play in the same conference, only one of them can go to the Superbowl. But that doesn't change the fact that they are the two best choices.
I would rather have Ed's vacant seat go to someone who is active in the community, ran a good campaign, and genuinely wants to serve Lakewood on city council, regardless of the outcome of the most recent election.
That's not to say there aren't worthy options that did not just run for office, I just don't think it matters.
While losing an election doesnt make you unqualfied for an office, "having an interest" in a position doesnt make you qualified either. There are a lot of failed candidates in Lakewood, and while they all had an interest, the thought of many of them holding office is scary.
The at-large council seat represents the entire community, not just Ward 2. Mr. Shields who again may be a very good man and should attempt to run again in 2009 if he believes he has the support, got less than half the votes in a single ward. Again, using that logic, Tom George should fill the seat, because almost 3 times as many voters approved of him as of Mr. Shields. In fact, Mr. George WON the seat Mr. Shields lost four times.
As for Mr. Demro he has run for citywide office twice and was badly beaten both times. While he has a core of devoted followers, appointing him would be a thumb in the eye of the majority of voters who rejected him by large numbers.
To me it just says the wrong thing when we say "it doesnt matter whether you win or lose, well GIVE you the office anyway"