Ahh, the sweet smell of memes on a wintry day…
First, in a wonderful foreshadowing of the efficacy of ‘shared services’ amongst our various municipalities, the County Supervisors kick off the New Year by looking to ‘share’ the same seat only to find that they really can’t share it. I’m disappointed as a satirist when reality renders me irrelevant.
But don’t worry kids– shared services will solve everything.
Second, the meme and propaganda machine is in full force against the reappointment of corporation counsel even though voters in the last election were well aware who Mayor Thane would appoint as counsel. I guess that’s what happens when you don’t have a ‘mandate’.
Speaking of mandates, I’m curious how the local media will view the Iowa caucuses tonight. Here are the current poll results:
What’s interesting in Iowa is that it will be very unlikely that any candidate achieves more than 50% of the vote. Therefore, by our local definition of ‘winning’ as requiring more than 50% of the vote, it appears that no candidate can ‘win’ Iowa. Therefore, by our localized logic, no candidate should be deemed a winner and no candidate has a mandate to the presidency. In other words, the final vote matters not at all as no one will emerge with a mandate. Why, given any candidate, more people voted against said candidate than for!
So how can any candidate have a ‘mandate’?! Impossible!
I sure hope the headlines tomorrow in the political media don’t claim ‘Candidate X Wins Iowa Caucuses’. Let’s hope they get it right with our local flavor of media with something like ‘Iowa Caucuses Confound Logical and Arithmetic Principles With Mass Confusion Over How to Interpret Vote Results: All Candidates Simultaneously Win and Lose With No Quantitative Difference in Outcomes. Candidates to Resolve Caucuses Through Duels to the Death”.
Let’s hope 2012 gives us more honest headlines than 2011.
Shhh, be vewy quiet about this lest local media runs some research and analysis: GW Bush, our 43rd president, had no mandate either in the 2000 election. In fact, more people voted for Gore in the popular vote than Bush even without adding in the other candidates. Funny how no local media trumped the lack of mandate from Bush 43 in terms of policy or their ongoing term. But let’s not let the process and rules of engagement get in the way of a good meme.
And you crazy kids thought it was a ‘New’ Year.
Not at all, it’s the very same year over and over again.
Welcome to 2012, the prequel to 3012.
It makes no difference for me, living in the Town of Amsterdam, but I can understand others distaste for the corporation counsel asking for a 25 % increase in pay. It is unheard of in todays world to get an increase of 25% when others are taking cuts and givebacks.
I’m not sure if I would apply the idea of mandate to the corp counsel selection. Yes, informed voters knew who Thane would pick, however I would think that informed voters would also know that their common council choice could vote to deny that appointment. Checks and balances are the way things are supposed to work.
Tim,
The subtext to my ‘mandate’ posts center on legitimacy– the mandate meme serves to undermine legitimacy for any policy or action of your political opponent. If you can perpetuate the meme that “more people voted against the mayor” than for, then any policy or action naturally is tempered with the claim that it somehow lacks standing or grounds. For all the uproar by those who claim to uphold “will of the people” , I find it ironic that the will of the people in vote counts matters not in the case of corp counsel as the council’s vote demonstrates.
BTW I view the appointment and the salary as two distinct issues. The Council could have approved the appointment without the salary increase. But then that would undermine the other local meme that “political parties don’t matter in local politics”. That one is utterly hysterical.
Ah, I see – use of the “no mandate” idea against certain positions is what you are targeting. Really, either crying “mandate” or “no mandate” for or against any idea is difficult to defend.
I’m not sure what you mean by saying that approving the appointment but not the raise would have shown political motivation. Any more than not approving either?