Kansas City Area Elections tomorrow (& three types of politicians)

Tomorrow marks the general elections for many of our local cities here in the KC area. Kansas City Dog Advocates has a very detailed overview of the candidates for the Kansas City, MO elections as well as the Raytown candidates for tomorrow's votes so you know where they stand on various animal welfare issues.

Please, please, please get out and vote tomorrow. Last month, for the Kansas City primary  elections, only about 15% of the voting age people in the city came out and voted. That's a dismal response. With low voter-turnout expected for tomorrow, if the animal welfare community comes out and makes their voices heard they can make a difference in the outcomes.  We are expecting some very tight races.  Also remember, in KCMO, you get to vote for the mayor, the in-district city council person for the district you live in, and ALL SIX at large candidates.  So be sure to read up on your At-Large races as well.

Getting good political candidates in place is very important for good animal welfare policy.  And good or bad policies can mean the difference in life or death for literally thousands of animals.  So getting good candidates in place makes good policies more likely, and bad policies less likely (duh).

Over the years, I've discovered that there are three major types of candidates when it comes to animal welfare policy.

1) Advocates -- These are the candidates that will actively seek out good policies and look to improve the situation. They will work with the animal welfare community on repealing bad laws, and on enacting good ones. We don't need many of these candidates, as a couple of compassionate council members can drive a lot of issues forward. But the absence of any of these types of candidates really makes getting initiatives passed through the council nearly impossible.  Look for 3 or 4 paw candidates as your advocates.

2) Neutrals - Most candidates frankly fit into this category. These are the folks who are likely not going to drive significant policy changes in animal welfare one way or the other, but will likely vote for them if they are proposed by the advocates.  They're votes are just as important to get policy passed.  But getting them to go with good policy proposed by others is important and it's fine if they make up a significant part of the council.  Most of these candidates have 2 paw ratings.

3) Roadblocks -- These are the folks that will propose bad legislation for animals and try to roadblock good laws. For whatever reason they have vendettas against pet owners, pets, or people that lead them into pushing for laws that will lead to the deaths of animals.  Obviously getting rid of all of the roadblocks (or at the very least, minimizing their voices) is essential to success.  If roadblocks outnumber advocates, you're in trouble. Most of the roadblocks get piles of poo -- but many of the one paw candidates fit this category depending on the topic.  They may be neutrals on something like breed-specific legislation, but roadblocks on laws involving feral cats. 

And yes, I know that there are a great number of issues that are impacting Kansas City -- education, crime, job creation, housing, etc.  I strongly encourage people to get to know their candidate's views on those topics as well. But over the years, I've found that most candidates who are roadblocks tend to support bad policies elsewhere in government because they generally a) lack compassion for people and animals or b) favor infinging on people's rights in many other ways as well.

So go out tomorrow and make Kansas City a better place over the next 4 years. 

Comments

[Alana]

Thanks Brent! I just made a list of whom I'm voting for based on the KC Dog Advocate's recommendations (of course I did that for the primary too and everyone I REALLY liked lost) Do you have a personal opinion on the KC Mayor race? It's hard to tell them apart, on animal issues or anything else...Also how is the Etax vote (not tomorrow, but coming up) going to affect animal welfare in KC, do ya think?

[H.Houlahan]

Trouble is, a lot of the worst, most damaging politicians are the ones who consider themselves as, sell themselves as, "advocates."

The ones who think forced sterilization sounds great, and everyone who opposes them or dares to present the facts on outcomes is a puppymilling scum.

The ones who go about outlawing collars they don't like, or puppy crates.

Politicians who push through numerical limit laws on alleged welfare grounds, or criminalize selling a kitten.

The people behind travesties such as Albuquerque's "humane law." Or at least, the politicians who allowed themselves to be co-opted by the crazed agenda of people who assure them that this is the way to be "kind" to animals.

They will all tell you that they are animal lovers, that they are "advocates," and that their opposition are the "roadblocks."

[Brent]

H -- You are absolutely right. Which is why we ask the questions, sit down with them and help them see what will or will not work, and then assign the ratings ourselves (vs asking them :))

Alana -- here is my personal take on the mayoral election (and this in no way represents KCDA's stance, which is solely about animal welfare).

I think both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses. James has no political experience and has been pretty non-committal on a large number of topics. His career is as a mediator, so he is really very skilled at playing in the middle. I think this skill set, along with his charisma, will be very beneficial in forming better relations across the state line and with other areas of the metro -- which will be important in forming alternatives to the eTax (either sooner or later), and for better transit initiatives. I also think he would do a good job of bridging the racial divide in this city.

Burke is very well established and connected politically -- which comes with both benefits and with the baggage of the "old guard" of KCMO politics. He says all of the right things (IMO) in forums and on questionaires, but still is part of the political class that has put us where we are now (for better and for worse). Would probably be a similar mayor as Kay Barnes was (Kay did endorse him) but as a Northlander, may be more supportive of their growth than filling in the urban core south of the river.

I'm personally leaning toward James on this one....but it's because I put a priority in filling in our urban core and bettering ties across the state line.

As for the eTax, I'm going to dive into that next week before that election. I'm still teetering on it. I think it is in the long-term best interest of the city to get rid of it, but am not sure it is a good short-term solution right now...