Election Results

We had a local election here yesterday, and the results were particularly interesting to me as a voter and as an observer.
As a voter, I faced the perplexing dilemma of a no-win situation. The city residents were asked to vote on a 0.5% increase to our sales tax, the purpose of which was to raise money to pay for repairs to streets, guttering, street lights, curbs, etc. The city has been deferring maintenance on streets for the past 10 years, spending money that should have gone to maintenance on other, less important items. So, I found myself trapped in a no-win vote. If I voted "Yes," I voted to give the city more money to waste because it has already shown that it will not spend its funds appropriately. If I voted, "No," then I'm guaranteeing that the infrastructure will decay because the city already has shown the inability to assess budget priorities correctly. So, when I went to vote yesterday, I just stood there, debating between "Yes" and "No" for several minutes. I finally voted "No" because I was not convinced that the city would use the funds properly.
As an observer, this election also was fascinating. First of all, the headline in the local paper about the sales tax vote was a classic case of media bias. "Sales Tax Receives Emphatic Yes" ran the headline. The vote, though, was 57%-43%, which I would hardly call emphatic. If the vote were 67%-33% or 75%-25%, I would call that emphatic. But a measely 4% spread is hardly emphatic. The headline, then, tells us two things: the opinion of the headline's author about the sales tax increase (he supports it) and the general political outlook of the author (politically towards the liberal side). I can't believe that the media try to deny that they have a liberal bias!
The second interesting aspect of this election was the vote over allowing the city council to be able to override a mayoral veto. Because of a mistake in the city charter, the mayor was allowed to veto any decisions by the council, but the council could not override the veto. The ordinance was designed to fix that. It explained its purpose, and anyone who followed the news at all would know that such was the purpose of the ordinance. Unfortunately, there were quite a few uninformed voters on this issue: 35% of voters voted "No" on this ordinance. There is no logical reason to vote "No" on this ordinance, unless, of course, they didn't understand the ordinance, which means that they were not following the issues at all. That lack of awareness saddens me a little. If we are to vote on issues as a society, what good is voting if a significant portion of the electorate is unaware of what they're even voting on?
Thankfully, this election cycle is over. The presidential elections last year soured me on the political process a little, and these results have not improved my attitude towards the efficacy of the process. Unfortunately, our process is the worst form, except for all of the others. I guess I'll just have to live with it.

Prince Caspian Quiz 28
64. How far does the process of summoning the White Witch go?
A. The White Witch appears in crystal and nearly comes back to life, only to be interrupted at the last second
B. It brings her back
C. The beginnings of the ceremony are interrupted
D. It fails. They wind up conjuring up Arwen instead

65. Who is present when the ceremony to start the White Witch begins? (choose as many as apply)
A. Caspian
B. Nikabrik
C. Dr. Cornelius
D. Trufflehunter
E. A werewolf
F. A hag

66. Who interrupts the ceremony to summon the White Witch? (Choose as many as apply)
A. Peter
B. Edmund
C. Trumpkin
D. Lucy
E. Susan
F. Dr. Cornelius