| CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR |
| 51/51 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| Dave Earling | 5,677 | 66.11% |
| Mike Cooper | 2,876 | 33.49% |
| Write-In | 34 | 0.40% |
| Total | 8,587 | 100.00% |
| CITY OF EDMONDS COUNCIL POS 4 |
| 51/51 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| Bob Wilcox | 4,152 | 50.01% |
| Diane Buckshnis | 4,122 | 49.64% |
| Write-In | 29 | 0.35% |
| Total | 8,303 | 100.00% |
| CITY OF EDMONDS COUNCIL POS 5 |
| 51/51 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| Joan Bloom | 4,052 | 50.27% |
| DJ Wilson | 3,981 | 49.39% |
| Write-In | 27 | 0.33% |
| Total | 8,060 | 100.00% |
| CITY OF EDMONDS COUNCIL POS 6 |
| 51/51 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| Frank Yamamoto | 5,392 | 68.65% |
| Alvin Rutledge | 2,438 | 31.04% |
| Write-In | 24 | 0.31% |
| Total | 7,854 | 100.00% |
| CITY OF EDMONDS COUNCIL POS 7 |
| 51/51 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| Darlene Stern | 4,071 | 51.28% |
| Lora Petso | 3,843 | 48.41% |
| Write-In | 25 | 0.31% |
| Total | 7,939 | 100.00% |
| City of Edmonds Prop 1 |
| 51/51 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| YES | 3,545 | 41.04% |
| NO | 5,092 | 58.96% |
| Total | 8,637 | 100.00% |
| City of Edmonds Prop 2 |
| 51/51 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| YES | 3,486 | 40.05% |
| NO | 5,219 | 59.95% |
| Total | 8,705 | 100.00% |
| City of Edmonds Prop 3 |
| 51/51 100.00% |
| Vote Count | Percent | |
| YES | 3,132 | 35.98% |
| NO | 5,572 | 64.02% |
| Total | 8,704 | 100.00% |
41 Replies to “Edmonds Election 2011: Latest election results, 5 p.m. Wednesday – mayor, council, propositions”
The increase in the count is only about 150 since yesterday; the most votes counted have been for mayor. Only 8,587 votes have been counted, but of as 11:30 this morning the county auditor has received 13,143 ballots from Edmonds. Not that many years ago near 100% of the count was done election night, and that was when all of the voting, except absentee, was done that very day. With all of the system improvements we’ve gone backwards. Something seems to be wrong with the counting process.
I am surprised at the very small number of votes counted today. I wonder what the total voter turnout % will end up being?
One item of interest is the difference in votes for the City Council races versus the Tax propositions.
Average vote count for the 4 council races is 8,039 votes.
Average vote count for the 3 tax propositions is 8,682 votes.
As the old saying goes, “good, fast, cheap…. Pick any two.” In this case, we have good and cheap. Speed isn’t important, in this case.
Ken, The higher count for props vs candidates could be attributed to the idea that people may precieve they know something about the props or are voting no for pocket book reasons. But to vote for a candidate requires the need to try and figure out who would do the best job and some people just don’t get that involved to make an informed choice. To vote for a candidate based on signs, flyers, and all the other stuff is harder than just saying yes or no for streets for example.
This is all a guess on my part but from personal experience when I look at a race where people are involved I find it more difficult to vote for someone I know nothing about, but I can relate to liquor stores, tolls, roads, and those kind of things vs someone running for a water or hospital commissioner.
Look at the total vote count…
Props 8637-8705.
Mayor..8587
Position 6…7854
My assumption is people thought they knew more about the Mayor contest than they did about Frank and Al. So they voted for a mayor but not a council position with little or no publicity. And they had an opinion on the props that lead them to vote one way or the other.
Others can be the judge if this kind of pattern is a good thing or not, I am just making a personal, unreserached opinion.
On November 03, 2011, Secretary of State Sam Reed forecasted a 47 percent “turnout” for the General Election in Washington. Snohomish County Auditor Carolyn Weikel has predicted a voter turnout of slightly over 50 percent.
We can use these estimates as a guide to help estimate how many more votes are still pending. As voter turnout was 33.4 percent as of 5:00 pm last night, for simplicity purposes we can say that roughly 2/3rds of the votes are in and counted.
As the average vote count for the 4 council races is 8,039 votes, it looks like there may be another 4,000 votes or so still to be counted related to the City Council races.
Based on the 2007 voter turnout, the year of the last Mayoral election in Edmonds, there may be more than 5,000 votes still to be counted. The average voter turnout for the three contested City Council positions was 13,371 in 2007.
All the above being said, I would anticipate today’s 5:00 pm update to be much larger than yesterday’s update was.
Ken:
As stated in #1 above, as of yesterday morning the county had received 13,143 ballots. This morning’s total is 16,641; that’s a record!
Oops….sorry, I missed your comment Ron. Is that information available online somewhere?
Based on the 16,641 count, we appear to have roughly 50% of the vote still ahead of us . . .and maybe more as some ballots may still be in transit.
Ken:
Here’s the county site for returned ballots.
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/auditor/elections/november2011generalelectionstats.pdf
Thanks Ron.
Do you have any thoughts on the CAUSE of the mere 150 incremental votes released last night at 5:00 pm? It is difficult to understand this when as of 11:30 am yesterday morning the county auditor had received 13,143 ballots from Edmonds.
I wonder why such a small number of votes were counted yesterday. System related? Shortage of vote counters? Both?
Good morning,
I also refer to the website referenced by Mr. Wambolt.
For those of you who may not have the time to look it up, I would like to report that as of Thursday 11/10/2011 at 7:30am, 62.31% of the ballots mailed to registered voters of Edmonds have been returned to the county. By comparison, within the county as a whole, 51.62% of the ballots have been returned.
There is a plethora of information that can be found on the home page of the county’s Elections / Voting Division. Their home page is:
https://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Auditor/Divisions/Elections_Voting/
Thank you,
Barbara Tipton
Ken:
I spoke with the manager of the Elections Division this morning. One of the reasons there is a delay in the counting is because they have to do the signature verification; when we voted at polling booths the identity verification was done there. Regarding the current situation with Edmonds, a relatively high percentage of our ballots were in their hands by election night, so he said that relatively more of our ballots were counted that night; because of that, I’m speculating that more of the counting resources went to other jurisdictions. I emphasized to him that we have a few close races, so I hope that many more ballots will be counted today. Perhaps the squeaky wheel will get the grease.
Basically I think it all comes down to the county having limited resources.
Thanks for this valuable information Ron!
Thanks Ron – I appreciate the info.
I wonder if we will ever have online voting. Canada and Estonia are leaders in this area.
With tomorrow Veteran’s Day, 11/11/11 . . . I wonder if tonight’s 5:00 pm update is the last one we will get until Monday the 14th?
Estonia? You are awesome Ken. There is no subject that you have not researched.
I would like to thank (most of) the candidates machines for pulling down all those darn signs. There are still some up & I am sure the tardy sign removers know who they are so I won’t name them (I know they still have legally mandated time to pull them but it is a lovely day to drive around & yank them out).
If we all take down signs we can spot and return them, the candidates will thank you!
Maybe the candidates who littered the town with their blight can act like adults and pick up after themselves just like dog owners clean up their mess.
Candidates own the signs and have a time limit to pick them up. Now is the time for us to think about political signs going forward. Here are some potiential ideas.
1. Ban them altogether
2. Limit them to priviate property only, no right of ways
3. Limit them to x number per block
4. Place temp bill boards in stragetic locations and let all candidates post them only on those bill boards
5. Limit total number candidate can place
6. Charge a deposit for each sign produced and then give refund for all taken down
And there are many other good ideas that could emerge.
Here are the problems: Free speech, how do you get name recognition against an incumbent? And other issues exist to be sure.
The regulations are approved by council but where do they come from to begin with?
Two ideas for immediate action by the citizens of Edmonds.
1. Either pick up all the remaining signs immediately, or wait until they are in violation of the cost and give them to Sue (see 17) or let Sue tell us what to do with them as we plan to return them to the owners. Then we can take a count and publish it in MEN as to who were the offenders and how many violations there were. Then we can ask the administration to follow the code and levy what ever penilities are in the code.
2. Set up a plan to immediately have the sign ordance reviewed and updated to try and take advantage of what we all remember about signage issues during the election. This could lead to a public discussion that could lead to a new and impoved way for us to move forward with new and maybe better ideas going forward.
Finally, as we relook at our temp sign codes let’s evaluate what other signs my be violating the code and see how we deal with those as well.
I find it disgusting that candidates whose signs have not yet been removed are being harassed about that when the legal deadline for the removal of those signs has not yet arrived.
The visual pollution at election time is disgusting! What is even more disgusting is that some candidate supporters will steal or destroy their opponents’ signs. My friend Diane Buckshnis has had over 100 signs stolen, even from private people’s front yards!
Darrol, has there been a study somewhere that shows that signs have an influence on people’s vote? Many neighborhoods where I have lived did not allow signs in their covenant.
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that blanket prohibition of political signs is a violation of the First Amendment. If your neighborhood prohibits them, you can ignore the prohibition – it is not enforceable. For more details:
https://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/signs.aspx
Betty, name recognition is one of the keys to win elections. Doorbelling and signs are a big component for name recognition.
Ron, Thinking about alternatives and offering ideas to have us all think a little about how we can improve town is not discusting. When is the legal deadline and to be a good citizen some candidates got going on sign removal even before 8pm on Tues, so it would be nice that all of our candidates pledged to remove signs immediately.
Joe, good to read your comments again. I knew of the things you mentioned but just wanted people to begin to THINK about options.
All I was suggesting was that we take some time now while we can all remember what signage is all about for all of our temp signs for that matter. Sometimes we can make better decisions if we talk about issues, discuss the facts, think about options and then see if we want to make changes.
An election rant, sorry if this is misplaced here: This is my first time voting since moving to Edmonds earlier this year, and I have to say the ballot was the most poorly designed I’ve ever seen. Is that the typical design for Sno Cty ballots (the arrow, drawing in the connection to indicate one’s selection)? After all the history of ballot problems over the years, how is this the best we’ve come up with?
Darrol:
I obviously was not referring to those comments of yours. But now I will ask, is being legal but not getting signs down right after the polls close make that candidate a bad citizen? That’s what you’re inferring. It’s tough enough running a campaign; candidates don’t also need to be then judged by rules devised by a few citizens. In the two elections that I ran for council, I had my signs down in less than 24 hours; I am retired and not having to deal with other demands on my time. Some candidates have many other things to get done. As long as they’re legal it’s unfair to harass them about it.
Campaign signs must be removed within 10 days of the election.
Ron you said:My response is in CAPS
Darrol:
I obviously was not referring to those comments of yours. IT IS NOT OBVIOUS TO ME, I HAD MADE COMMENTS THAT RELATE TO GETTING SIGNS DOWN EARLIER THAN WHAT IS LEGAL SO IT IS WAS PRETTY EASY TO CONCLUDE YOU YOU MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT ME.
But now I will ask, is being legal but not getting signs down right after the polls close make that candidate a bad citizen? That’s what you’re inferring. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT FULLY READ OR I MAY NOT HAVE SAID IT CLEARLY BUT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BEING GOOD, YES GOOD CITIZENS NOT BAD CITIZENS. I WAS TRYING TO SET A STAGE TO BE GOOD NOT A TRAP TO BE BAD. SOME CANDIDATES ON ELECTION EVE SAID THIER FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS WAS TO GET THEIR SIGNS DOWN. I THINK THAT IS GOOD.
It’s tough enough running a campaign; candidates don’t also need to be then judged by rules devised by a few citizens. I WAS NOT TRYING TO CREATE JUDGEMENTAL RULES BUT SET THE STAGE FOR CANDIDATES TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE WANT AND JUMP IN THEIR AND MAKE IT HAPPEN. IT WOULD SHOW ME THAT THEY WILL BE GOOD AT ELECTED OFFICE TO ANTICIPATE WHAT PEOPLE WANT AND ACT ACCORDINGLY.
In the two elections that I ran for council, I had my signs down in less than 24 hours;THEN BY MY VIEW YOU WOULD BE A VERY GOOD CANDIDATE!!!
I am retired and not having to deal with other demands on my time. Some candidates have many other things to get done. THEN AS A LEADER AND GOOD THINKING THEY COULD PUT TOGETHER A PLAN IN ADVANCE TO GET HE SIGNS DOWN AS A GOOD PUBLIC SERVICE. IF THEY CAN ORGANIZE A CAMPAIGN THEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ORGANIZE A SIGN REMOVAL TEAM. PUTTING THE WORD OUT ON MEN WOULD BRING OUT THE VOLUNTEERS. MAYBE WE COULD ALL MEET JOE MORGAN IN THE PROCESS AND I WOULD BET RAY MARTIN AND OTHERS WOULD HELP TOO.
As long as they’re legal it’s unfair to harass them about it. I WAS NOT HARASSING THEM, I WAS GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO A PUBLIC SERVICE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND BE RECOGNIZED ACCORDINGLY, JUST LIKE YOU WOULD BE RECOGNIZED FOR YOUR 24 HOUR TAKE DOWN PLAN. NEXT TIME YOU RUN I WILL NOT ONLY HELP YOU TAKE DOWN YOUR SIGNS I WILL HELP YOU PUT THEM UP.
Darrol:
I like 19 # 2. Lets get a public dialogue started now on campaign signs
before people forget what a blight they are.
We can regulate these signs, it is being done in many cities around the
Country
Even if you could limit the number of campaign signs, I would not be in favor of doing so because that would give an advantage to incumbents who have better name recognition.
I think that campaign signs are just one small price we pay for living in a democracy. This is political speech, and the First Ammendment prevents us from doing much about it.
For example, comment #19 #2 (Limit them to priviate property only, no right of ways) is not gonna fly. In Collier v. City of Tacoma, the Washington State Supreme Court held:
The traditional public forum includes those places “ ‘which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate,’ ” such as parks, streets and sidewalks. The parking strips in which Collier and his supporters placed his political signs lie between the “streets and sidewalks” and thus are part of the “traditional public forum”. Because these places occupy a special position in terms of First Amendment protection, the government’s ability to restrict expressive activity is very limited.
You can find the entire opinion here:
https://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19930701_0040491.wa.htm/qx
The precinct results were released this afternoon. Edmonds has 52 precincts, Dave Earling has received the majority of votes in 50 of the precincts. Dave has not only won election by a hugh majority of votes, he is the favored candidate throughout our city.
Joe, I am for free speech and all that but in my area the city holds us accountable to mow, and maintain the right of way next to our home owners association commmon property. As a result we have grass, shrubs and other landscaping that requires irrigation and sign when hammered into the ground have caused damage to our private property and the property we are expected to maintain. So some how we have to balance the need for private property and public speech. I do not know where the balance is, but when candidates do damange that costs us money, some how I have a problem with such free speech. It that close to the “yelling fire in a theater” issue or are we expected to pick up the cost.
Darrol:
If I uderstand your #31 correctly, the area you are referring to is immediately adjacent to the HOA property. If that’s the case the property should actually be the setback area of the HOA’s property and therefore private property. The city’s right-of-way normally ends with the sidewalk.
Darrol, I’m just finding it hard to get excited over the amount of damage a campaign sign can do. I just don’t see this as a problem that needs to be solved.
But for those of you who think this problem does need to be solved, the Constitution seriously limits your options. You don’t have to like it, but you’d be a fool to ignore it.
Anyway, I’m not someone who really cares about this one way or another. I just thought you should know you’re probably not going to win this battle. You’re not fighting me – you’re fighting the Constitution.
Joe, you are always a voice of logic and reason. Two questions to help move the sign issue forward.
1. If a candidate violates the local ordinance about signs such as the time limit after an election would it be ok to pick up the signs if the candidate not do so? Does it matter if it is right of way or private property?
2. Election signs happen only during the election season but what about our laws associated with signs like, home for sale/rent, sign up of foot ball league, a business service like a hauling service or tree cutting service.
Visual polution is all around us, where do we draw the line and how do we enforce it? Ops a 3rd question but you thoughts will help Joe.
My answer to #1 is to contact the candidate. I’d be surprised if they didn’t pick up the sign the same day. If you don’t want to do that for some reason, I don’t really know what your legal options are. I suppose you could call the police, but you seem like too nice a guy to do that.
#2: The courts look at commercial speech very differently from political speech. All your examples but election signs are commercial speech. Cities are allowed broad discretion in regulating that. We have many existing regulations of commercial speech.
#3: That question is far too broad to me. I don’t really see a problem we need to solve.
Joe, the political sign left too long. I have called candidates and most will pick up quickly. If called and they do not agree to pick up do you think it is ok to pick up the sign and remove it? Your other answers were very good by the way.
Darrol:
We wanted a dialogue and it looks like we have one started. It is my belief that more then a majority of our fellow citizens would be delighted to be done with political signs on public property. I also believe that we can regulate them without violating constitutional rights. Lets see where this leads us.
Dave
Darrol, I guess if I called the sign owner and they didn’t want to pick it up, I would ask if they want me to dispose of it. To me, that sign is somebody’s personal property, and I would respect their rights.
Dave Page, I’m not sure where you intend to go with this, but I fear that if we try to get rid of political signs there are two big problems:
If we pass a law and it is challenged, there will be legal expenses.
But most importantly, as Ron Wambolt said, you would impede a challenger to an incumbent. That’s not acceptable to me. I’ll be interested in hearing whether you come up with any ideas that don’t risk legal expenses and don’t hurt challengers.
As I said earlier, it just doesn’t seem like a big problem to me. The obvious solutions are far worse than the problem.
I’m with Joe M. Signs are out there to alert people to issues and people we need to know more about. It’s an indication that people are interested in candidates and issues. I don’t see them as a problem but an indicator that our political system is working. We sometimes forget how lucky we are in having free speech.
Dave 37, I have been supportive of a discussion and we have had an interesting one. It will be hard to get council to agree to even discuss any changes to political signs. I would just like to see the existing regulations enforced or be allowed to be enforced when it comes to political signs. Free speech and all will make that difficult. But when it comes to the other non political signs it is clear that we have many violations around town in the use of public right of ways. But the problem is the sign that is in violation of the codes that is on public right of way how do we get rid of it? Council could review the code and make some decisions on how the enforcement methods but until then we will have signs in violation with no way to deal with them. This discussion is not gaining any traction and I would suggest that if you have ideas to advance to council then outline those ideas and see if you can get some agreement.
Maybe my views are tainted.
After running around during the first several weeks installing signs and
repeatedly reinstalling stolen and or wind blown signs, I was overwhelmed
by the visual pollution I perceived. I’m going to check with a couple of cities in California that have a campaign sign law on the books. I am the last guy in favor of our city paying out more attorney fees.
I know A.C.E. will give us some feedback, I’m not in a mad dash to get anything really started until after the entire new city council and Mayor are seated. Thanks for your comments.
Dave
As many may be aware the city has only one code enforcement officer. I would hate to see more laws passed that we have no resourses to enforce.
Without the use of signs many organizations would not be able to advertise there events such as churchs, pancake breakfasts, art shows etc. If you see a sign that has been left too long give them a call to have it picked up. Political signs are a must for the stated reason given in earlier comments