Yes, but in the primary one may vote for the lesser of THREE evils.

Perhaps this will help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMnY5FAKhl4

"the lesser of the 3 evils" ?
Is there really a lesser? They are all nearly interchangeable as far as I can tell.
Just suppose that one of Jack's 3 were to prevail in the primary...now we are talking the voters taking back the city from the usual suspects and Goldschmidt's cabal.
Ah...to dream....

I heard Fernandez's radio ad focusing on restoring garbage service and focusing on stabilizing water and sewer rates. Need to review his voters' guide statement, but I like what I heard in his ad.

I wish Portland would adopt a different form of governance than currently. Having commissioners and Mayors run bureaus subjects the bureaus to the inexperience of the politician heading them plus accentuated politics. A city administrator selected in part by the city auditor might help bring some business sense to Portland city hall.

But this said, the real problem with Portland governance is the electorate. When the likes of Tre Arrow is polling with as much as 7% of Portlanders' stated mayorial choice, you know Portland governance is bound to be on the juvenile side of the ledger, where pipe dreams of utopia are chased after at the expense of basic services and personal conveniences.

Here we go again. According to this plan, it doesn't matter which of the leading candidates is elected Mayor, so we should vote for one of the also-rans. How many times are we supposed to fall for this nonsense? There is no message to be delivered, and certainly none to be received by anyone who matters. Not wanting to have to choose between Hales and one of the other two, I'm voting against him in the primary by voting for someone who may come in first or second. The rest of you, if you follow this path, might as well write in Ralph Nader.

This is very simple, just look at the list of endorsements for each. Expect that each endorser is expecting a payback, so Smith is the public employees unions, Hales the developer, etc.

My vote is for Fernandez since he has no endorsements.

"in the primary one may vote for the lesser of THREE evils."

To paraphrase Jerry Garcia, the lesser of three evils is still evil.

A protest vote? What exactly am I protesting.

Allan L. is right.

If you really believe there is no difference between the three main contenders, by all means follow this plan. But if you believe there is a lesser one or two of evils, then you are wasting your vote if you don't choose one of the top three. A protest vote is not much of a protest when it counts for less than 1000 votes.

Voting for someone who has no endorsements? Great idea--vote for the candidate who no one supports.

Steve,
Good clue, look at those who are endorsed by the "same old insider lists of organizations and names" and if you don't want the agenda continued, give others your consideration and vote. We have had a "club" here creating a choke-hold on what is determined for our city and a choke-hold on our elections. This is the crossroads as far as I am concerned, are the rest of the people going to wake up and say No this time? I hope they "get it" and are tired of the having the pre-selected ones paraded out for them!
Speaking of parades, Scott Fernandez and his campaign were visible Saturday at the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade and the people were thrilled with Fernandez and his message.

I'm a bit torn here: to me, Scott Fernandez is hands down the best candidate. Max Brumm is #2, and if he decides to make a career of public service, he'll probably be the best choice in a decade or so. That said, nobody outside the "big 3" has a real chance. Of those three, Brady is (to me at least) the best of the lot, with Smith being absolutely terrifying. The sustainability center is a boondogle, and I'm stunned she's in favor of it, but the other two alternatives scare the crap out of me.

If the attitudes of Allan L and Johnny P had been prevalent during the Revolution, we would still be under British Rule.

Yeah, don't think outside the box. Vote for whom you are told to vote, by the media, by the selection process. Then you can say "I voted for a winner"! That's all that counts. Then shut up and drink your "Blended" water.

I agree that Scott Fernandez is the best candidate for mayor we have, with Max Brumm being #2. I wish Max had gone for a council seat his first time out instead of mayor.

I just can't believe that people are still happy with the crap that is going on and are willing to vote for more of the same. I guess they can just bury their head further in the compost bin.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." If you keep voting for the lesser of evils, then you either want things to stay the same, or you're insane. So tell us, Allan L. & Johnny P., which is it?

I'm voting for Scott Fernandez, BTW.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."

Thank you for making my point so eloquently.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." If you keep voting for the lesser of evils, then you either want things to stay the same, or you're insane. So tell us, Allan L. & Johnny P., which is it?

I don't agree with the way you've framed the issue here. I believe the thing we're doing over an over as an electorate is pretending that our only two options in this type of situation is to either vote for the "least bad" candidate or cast a "protest vote." Although you find yourself on the opposite side of the argument as Allan and Johnny, the three of you all seem to have accepted this false dichotomy.

In my humble opinion, what we really need to do is reform our voting systems. There are a variety of voting systems that eliminate the "least bad" vs "protest vote" scenario, allow third parties to actually win seats in legislative bodies, and are cheaper as they don't require runoff elections.

In my humble opinion, what we really need to do is reform our voting systems. There are a variety of voting systems that eliminate the "least bad" vs "protest vote" scenario, allow third parties to actually win seats in legislative bodies, and are cheaper as they don't require runoff elections.

Indeed. On the other hand though, as it is the whole instant-runoff thing should improve the odds that a left-field unlikely candidate can win here, compared to the more standard way we do elections in the US.

It doesn't matter what kind of voting system we have, you guys aren't going to like the candidate the majority of Portlander's agree on. It almost sounds to me like you guys want there to not be a mayor, or a system where candidates who nobody supports and cannot win somehow win.

...you guys aren't going to like the candidate the majority of Portlander's agree on...

What we don't like is that in this case the majority of Portlanders have been told who to essentially vote for by leaving the rest of the contenders out. Out of the press, out of the debates, - some democracy!!!
What is there to like?

Well, from where I'm sitting clinamen, there aren't any viable candidates that the media is just ignoring this time around. I might see it differently if there were experienced politicians with measurable popular support being ignored and shut out of the media like has sometimes been noted with Ron Paul, but there's no Ron Paul candidate here. The Brumm kid and Fernandez? C'mon.

Aaron, that is a red herring and you know it.

Or should. Perhaps I am giving you much more credit than you deserve. If so, my sincere apologies.

You mean Ron Paul is a red herring? Of course I agree. If not, I guess you did give me too much credit, apology accepted.

You don't think comparing this local election to the Revolutionary War was a little hyperbolic? Shall we suspend the rule of law and civic process and storm City Hall with bayonets?

Although you find yourself on the opposite side of the argument as Allan and Johnny, the three of you all seem to have accepted this false dichotomy.

Except that we are in the midst of an election in which the two choices being debated are in fact the only ones. There's no way of reforming this election, which is the subject of the post.

I was not referring to Ron Paul.

Nor was I being hyperbolic.

Truman said it well with his desk plaque that said:

"The Buck Stops Here"

To which I say:

"I play these"

...Shall we suspend the rule of law and civic process and storm City Hall with bayonets?

How much of a civic process with any integrity is left? Rules of law are carefully sidestepped as they they get away with and why should citizens have to battle with lawsuits to keep things honest?

We don't need to storm with bayonets....we need to cleanse this city hall with this election by voting well, take a look at Jack's selection!

Me thinks those who doth protest the thread:
Please don't vote for any of the "Big 3" for Portland mayor
must be from the big 3 and a bit worried?
Why else bother with this group?

You should vote for the person who you think will do the best job for the CoP.

However, you could also vote for the person least likely to win and therefore provide yourself with years of "Well I didn't vote for xyz so I can complain about everything s/he does."

Here is an idea, vote for yourself!

......there aren't any viable candidates that the media is just ignoring this time around...

The media has been ignoring other viable candidates not just this time around but for years!!

Some of us including Jack as by the title of this thread, have had enough.

Our city has gone into a downward spiral because of it. I am tired of the choke-hold game, evidently, you aren't.

By the way, Fernandez is an adult and we would finally have a much-needed Mayor for the people. If that galls you, or if you think that too much of a long shot, then so be it.

Brumm is a kid, but as far as I can tell is more concerned about our city than those three who are promoted to run the show here.

C'mon Aaron, get with the new system we need here, or are you for one of the big three and for some reason want to continue the agenda?

Why isn't NONE OF THE ABOVE an option on the ballot? There's a perfect "protest" vote if I ever saw it.

In past elections sleeper candidates came out of nowhere and stole the election from the establishment. See Mayor Bud and Gov Jesse. Allan L etal of those elections were totally surprised (I didn't know anybody who voted for him!). Maybe it'll happen this time. Maybe Jack and his army are the silent majority who say 'F@$& this CR@p, we are rejecting the Goldy machine and going with an adult this time'.

Or maybe Allan and his folks will prevail with more of the same old crap Portland has had for years.

Brady can't connect the dots. She is equally as bad as CharLIE and Smith.

My biggest beef with Brady is her insistance that she'll end teacher lay offs and fight for "funding" for schools, and can't or won't understand what her infatuation with new Urban Renewal Districts (URDs) and Tax Increment Funding (TIFs) does to school revenues.

Brady is worse than a fool, she is a knave.

Nor can I go along with Fernandez. On his web site, he spends a lot of time criticizing Mayoral and Commissioner special projects and pet projects and the damage those do to city budgeting. Fernandez also wants the city to "stick to its knitting" and not do the jobs / supply the services which are rightly the province of other governmental entities. i.e. Fernandez wants the City to stick to its core missions. So far so good.

But on his web site Fernandez identifies himself as an animal lover / fan / protector who wants to use City funds to start a new, duplicative, "no kill" animal shelter. Last I looked, that was a county responsibility. So, despite some lofty sounding language, Fernandez has his own "pet projects" (pun intended) and will advocate for the city to go outside its core mission when its a project he wants to support.

There is no more principle there than with Brady or Hales.

Max might be good in 15 years, but right now he's too young and inexperienced.

To me, that leaves Bill Dant.

My two cents, only. Your mileage may vary.

Nonny Mouse, you are incorrect about my position on the animal shelter. No where does it say I use City funds because the program does not use City or County funds. It is funded by license fees, public donations and is managed by a non government funded "Public Trust". Not one public dollar is used, all public dollars now used for the animal shelter would be saved.....not as my pet project. I have an active email service on my web site where you are free to ask questions. Please do so before you misrepresent my positions and intentions

And Charlie's been caught with his pants down again. What is it about liars that so infatuate Portlanders?

http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-28569-hales_abandons_tv_ad_that_makes_bogus_claims_about_his_help_for_public_schools.html

As per my other post, the Portland electorate has a problem.

The only way we have any hope is for all us to unite and vote for ONE of the non big three. This way, with your amazing readership we can actually make a difference.

After watching that KGW debate, I have come to a conclusion: Eileen Brady is Sam Adams in a skirt. "Sustainability" this..."Equity" that...blah, blah, blah.

I was on the fence....but now that woman truly scares me. Wow.

clinamen, it is safe to say that you and I have contrasting world views and ideas about government. I like transit and apartment buildings and urban growth boundaries and good beer. I understand three of those tend to represent some kind conspiracy plot to some of the commenters here. I don't feel like my way of life is in danger and I'm not terrified about the direction this city is moving in. There are a lot of towns in the US and I bet more of them cater to your values than mine. And in those towns it's the folks of my makeup that live in constant dismay and want the people they disagree with to just knock everything off and leave them the hell alone. I believe crooks and liars permeate both varieties with equal concentration, and overall there's hardly been a time with more transparency and politicians having a tougher time getting away with being bad people than now.

None of the big three have me particularly excited, but probably for different reasons than you. You need to be more than an adult, or even an adult with agreeable ideas to be a good mayor in Portland. It's actually not very easy for a mayor in this town to make big changes with our weak-Mayor / council system. Look at how stunted Adams has been. As little as he can get done, the stuff he does manage usually aren't things you can just will to happen because you have mayor powers. When I looked into Fernandez I didn't find much to encourage me that he'd make a particularly great mayor if he won or that anybody else strongly felt so. Evidently he's not compelling enough to get bojack to break a blog-promise to vote Max Brumm. One trait that both a mayor of my dreams and yours must share to be successful is that they need to be capable of getting the public excited about whatever it is they want to accomplish. They need to display the kind of wit, ambition, and political prowess it would take to do much of anything interesting from the Mayor's office.

I want an energetic, optimistic mayor that can get people excited about big ideas and has the savvy to get things accomplished. I get the feeling some here might prefer voting in a pet rock that will do nothing but be heavy enough slow the works down rather than another Katz.

There's nothing I really know about Fernandez's plans as mayor that worry me... because I can't find anything of substance about his vision and positions on real issues. Water is not going to be the deciding factor in this election.

The lack of help from the media getting him elected can only be blamed for so much. For one, what has there been to report? Can you think of an election when news organizations have been less of a gatekeeper between a candidate and the populace? And even without the Internet, I've met a couple non-Smith non-Brady non-Hales hopefuls just walking around trying to go about my business just this last week. One guy has tried to give me a flier about himself on three occasions and finally this weekend I relented and took one from him. Portland isn't that big of a city, if you want to put yourself out there it just takes stamina.

Scott Fernandez, I would encourage you to update your website a bit to further explain your positions and goals as mayor. It certainly wasn't immediately clear what your specific plans and thinking regarding the no-kill shelter were.

There is a serious deficit of information out there about you. People are trying to figure out who to vote for as we speak, and with a wall of 23 names people aren't going to be spending a lot of time e-mailing each of the candidates to figure out what their positions are.

The very first thing I think many people will do is filter out those that don't even have a bit of experience in government. In your case all the information I could find on your campaign website regarding your PURB and the Water Quality Advisory Committee tenure are in two sentences across two pages, with nothing at all on the main page hinting you have any experience, let alone explaining the nature of your work in much detail.

If you make it easier for someone to mentally construct a matrix of the candidates and their positions on issues folks care about, I imagine it might do you some good. Frankly I'd suggest you just go ahead and make an actual matrix yourself of just you and the big three candidates (so you're the fourth, not just 1/20th of the noise) and post it on your website, along with more of a resume. There isn't one good all-inclusive voter's cheat sheet that spans many domains of interest anywhere that I'm aware of. If you produced something useful, people will use it, share it, and folks will end up at your website even if they weren't looking for you. Choosing a mayor shouldn't be about ticking items off a rubric, but most of those in the running are rather tedious, I suspect that's what a lot of folks are going to revert to.

Scott Fernandez, your recent radio ads are very effective. Thanks for being succinct. Please make another ad with other major issues including urban renewal, mass transit sustainable center, convention center hotel, ecodistricts and other major issues touched on this blog.

Aaron - it's big ideas and absolutely no attention to detail that puts Portland on the precipice of bankruptcy. As a former COP employee, I can say many other employees feel similarly disgusted with the direction of the City, the erosion of basic services, inapproppriate spending, political grandstanding,etc. You may love your apartments and transit, but those of us who have seen our neighborhoods trashed by crappy unfill housing, areas subject to much higher crime rates around Max lines, and those of us who no longer feel safe on Max after 6:00 p.m. would strongly disagree with you.

Plethora of candidates, about time. Yes, I love the idea of turning
back water rate increases and ending the myth that all the bond money pouring into the PWB is to keep up with maintenance costs.
Water is life and privatization and indebtedness is death for a lot
of people and animals as well as our ecosystems(remember that?) Experience in governance? Scott Fernandez has it and served diligently for 9 years and was removed by Commissioner Leonard from PURB. Scott has remained consistent throughout. What other
track record do you need for governance and restoring substantive
principles?

Scott Fernandez -
License fees are collected at the point of a figurative gun, the state's police power. A license fee is collected from the public. A license fee dollar is as much a public fund as a property tax dollar.

Great bitch slap that Randy handed to Charlie in the letters to the editor today. I thought it was funny. Bet the Charlie for mayor crowd didn't like it though.

People concerned about resources are emphasizing the importance of working to keep water safe, available, and affordable. Scott understands this better than anyone else. CitizensforPortlandswater.org, where Scott has volunteered, has a number of participants who have followed the debt and process problems carefully. The major candidates simply do not seem to be bothered with selling citizens into debt and slapping liens on the watershed. This is just basic. Local labor and management stood up together to protest bureau plans, the last time water groups had to go down there to testify. Novick's entitled behaviors are outrageous, but I can understand why he thinks he can get away with it. We need real people at city hall, not people stuck in transmit-only mode.