Spokane7
65°
October 9, 2010 in City
Sixth District donnybrook
Spending, backgrounds, expertise at issue in competitive race
Michael Baumgartner gives his opening statement at Thursday’s Rotary Club debate.
(Full-size photo)(All photos)
He’s the incumbent. He’s his party’s whip in the state Senate. He has more campaign money and a diverse list of backers that includes unions and large businesses. But in his run for re-election, Democrat Chris Marr is the underdog.
His opponent, Republican Michael Baumgartner, garnered more votes in the August primary, even though the business and military consultant was mostly unknown locally before he announced his candidacy shortly after moving to Spokane in January.
Both have impressive résumés. Baumgartner has a degree from Harvard University and worked on economic development issues for the State Department in Iraq and as a business adviser and consultant in the Middle East. Marr spent two decades running an auto dealership in Spokane and has held high-profile positions with Spokane’s chamber of commerce, Washington State University’s board and the state transportation commission.
Baumgartner’s August primary victory – by nearly 7 percentage points – gave him bragging rights but didn’t affect who would appear on the November ballot because they were the only two candidates running.
The race went negative even before the primary. Democratic leaders spread a false rumor that Baumgartner had recently moved to Spokane from Florida. The state Republican Party sent out a mailer with a red blotch on the side of Marr’s head labeled “red ink,” as in debt, but Marr supporters said it looked more like a cartoon gunshot wound.
Recently, the two have appeared at heated debates, and expensive mailers have begun flowing into mailboxes throughout the district.
Baumgartner labels Marr a “fundamentally big-government guy” who spent recklessly as a legislator, while indebted to unions, forcing the state into a deep hole that led the Legislature to raise taxes. Marr calls Baumgartner a carpetbagger who offers only vague, unrealistic solutions and who landed in the 6th District to start a political career – not serve the public.
Marr and Don Barlow made history in 2006, becoming the first Democrats in almost 70 years to win seats in the 6th District, which surrounds central Spokane and in recent years has become one of the most competitive districts in the state. (Barlow lost his House seat two years later.)
In the primary, Baumgartner criticized Marr’s fundraising success, arguing it made him beholden to special interests. But Baumgartner, too, has amassed an impressive sum. Marr, who’s got nearly $400,000, has collected more money for a 2010 Washington state legislative race than all but one candidate statewide. Baumgartner is closing in on $300,000 and has the fifth-largest campaign chest of any legislative candidate.
Classmate gave Baumgartner the idea to run
Marr’s campaign has hit Baumgartner repeatedly for his recent move into the district. Baumgartner grew up in and around Pullman. His mother is an elementary school teacher, his father was a professor at Washington State University. He moved to Spokane to attend Gonzaga Prep, but said he moved back to Pullman before his junior year because his brother was diagnosed with cancer. (He survived.) He earned a bachelor’s degree in economics from WSU and a master’s in public administration from Harvard.
In an interview in August, Baumgartner said he got the idea to run for Senate partly from David Condon, who works for U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and attended Gonzaga Prep with Baumgartner. He said he made the decision to run during the Christmas holiday and moved into the district in January. He cast his first vote in a Spokane County election in April.
In debates, Baumgartner stresses his Eastern Washington roots, saying he grew up “down the road” in Pullman, ran Bloomsday as a kid and hung out in Manito Park. He says much of what he learned overseas can be applied to state government.
“While it’s a bit different from the sense of what I was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of my international experience, the sense of trying to help and the sense of service, is very much the same,” Baumgartner said.
Marr says that living in Pullman and hanging out in Spokane doesn’t show a commitment to the 6th Legislative District.
“I don’t go down and tell people in Pullman, ‘This is my home here.’ It’s not,” Marr said.
Baumgartner spent much of the past decade overseas as a business consultant or doing economic development work, including a stint with the State Department in Iraq and another with a firm contracted with the State Department in Afghanistan.
Boston Globe columnist Kevin Cullen, who met Baumgartner at a luncheon at Harvard, wrote about Baumgartner, calling him an “architect of hope” for his work in Iraq. In 2009, he featured Baumgartner again, this time covering Baumgartner’s efforts to stop the narcotics trade in Afghanistan.
Baumgartner said he believes the United States depends too much on contractors to fight the war.
“In my view there’s a lot of war profiteering going on,” Baumgartner said recently.
Baumgartner is getting married on Sunday at the Cathedral of Our Lady of Lourdes in downtown Spokane to a British woman who also worked for Civilian Police International in Afghanistan. He has no children.
Marr led efforts to scale back freeway plan
Marr has a longer connection to Spokane.
He started life in New Jersey and grew up on military bases. His parents split when he was 10, according to previous coverage in The Spokesman-Review. His mother worked two jobs as a waitress to support her four children.
At 16, Marr started working nights as a restaurant dishwasher, eventually enrolling at Santa Barbara City College and making ends meet working on an assembly line that made high school rings. After earning his master’s in business administration from San Francisco State University, Marr and his wife moved to Washington. He worked first for Ford Motor Co. and later for McDonald’s. They moved to Spokane in the mid-1980s and raised two children.
In the Legislature, he’s become a prominent party leader. He led efforts to scale back plans for the North Spokane freeway to make it more likely to be built. He’s been a vocal supporter of expanding medical education in Spokane and economic development programs such as efforts to bolster Spokane’s University District.
This year, he opposed tax increases on soda, beer and candy that the Democratically controlled Legislature approved to help balance the budget. Marr did, however, vote to raise tobacco taxes.
Baumgartner says Marr got a pass on the taxes because the Legislature had enough votes to approve them without Marr. Marr says it’s disingenuous to say he really wanted the extra taxes, because he’s said all along that finding inefficiencies in government is a better way to balance the budget.
Baumgartner cited multibillion-dollar increases in the state budget during Marr’s time in the Legislature.
“Our state is in a crisis, and it needs fundamental reform,” Baumgartner said at a recent debate hosted by Spokane’s Rotary Club 21. “That’s what you’ll get from Mike Baumgartner. That is not what you’ll get from Chris Marr. He’s voted for bigger and bigger budgets.”
Marr says Baumgartner is using misleading figures that include gas taxes that can’t be diverted for purposes unrelated to transportation, federal money and debt obligations that can’t be ignored.
“He’s talking about every dollar that flows into the state,” Marr said. “It shows a lack of understanding of the budget.”
Marr voted against the budget this year. In 2007, he voted for a two-year operations budget that raised the state-funded portion from $30.2 billion to $32.6 billion, according to the state Office of Financial Management.
In candidate forums, Baumgartner often notes that Marr only agrees with the Association of Washington Business in 43 percent of his votes, based on the group’s legislative score card. Baumgartner often compares that number with the 76 percent rank the group gives Democratic state Rep. John Driscoll.
“Chris Marr will not do anything except in an election year that is against the special interests that run this state. That’s the big unions, the labor unions, the public-sector unions,” Baumgartner said at the Rotary debate. “That’s who he answers to, and that’s why he has such an abysmal business rating.”
But Marr says Baumgartner’s focus on a lobbying group’s rank indicates that it’s Baumgartner who’s beholden to special interests.
Marr notes that he has strong support from several businesses that lean Republican and stresses that Baumgartner didn’t win the business association’s endorsement either.
“I don’t give anyone a blank check,” Marr said. “I represent the citizens of this state.”
MAC faces angry crowd 
ZagChuck on October 09 at 7:59 a.m.
Marr’s problem is simple; his misrepresentations of the facts aren’t fooling anyone. Despite his desperate attempts to portray himself as “independent,” he votes with Gregoire, and Lisa Brown over 97% of the time.
Marr won’t talk about his “accomplishments” as a Senator, because he doesn’t want the voters to know what he has accomplished. Raising your taxes, growing government, and restricting your freedoms more and more with each vote he secures. These are not the actions of an “independent,” but Chris Marr is hardly an independent voice; he’s actually a leader of the leftist movement in Washington State.
Furthermore, Marr’s position as Majority Whip make’s his vote for the 6th district irrelevant. He and performed his duties as majority whip by ensuring the Democrat Party had enough votes to raise our taxes nearly $1 billion. This means he supported each tax increase across the board, and he showed his support as he “whipped” the votes up to overturn I-960, despite pleas from citizens in the 6th district and across the state.
It should be also be noted that despite these huge tax increases Marr ensured passage for as Majority Whip, the democrats still failed to balance the budget.
In summary, he failed to hear the voice of the people (who have voted for a 2/3rds requirement three times now), he supported huge tax increases, and he still failed to balance the budget despite raising taxes nearly $1billion, because he grew government too large. He can’t stand on his own reputation and his voting record indicates he votes with the leftist such as Lisa Brown.
Want more evidence of Marr’s lack of independence from the Democrat Party? Go see him on Sunday as he hangs out with Maria Cant-do-so-well and the rest of the Democrats who are raising our taxes, growing government and ruining our economy.
If you see him there, ask him why he gave your electoral college vote for President to other, more populated states?
The 6th district has been Marr-ed enough.
mmspowaus on October 09 at 8:08 a.m.
“I don’t give anyone a blank check,” Marr said. “I represent the citizens of this state.” - Chris Marr
Mr. Marr, you represent the citizens of the 6th that elected you, not the entire state of Washington. That’s the job for the state wide elected offices. Looking at your campaign financing via Public Disclosure Commission, most of your funding (sixty percent) comes from outside of your district; with over twelve percent coming from out of state (about $45,000). Perhaps this is why you feel as if you represent the entire state…
Here is the problem. Sometimes the interest of the 6th district comes into conflict with the interest of Seattle, Westside or even the rest of the entire state. In this case, who are you going to serve? By your statement and the fact that the overwhelming majority of your funding was received from outside of your district, it is not unreasonable to conclude, not the 6th district.
Although you are the majority whip, it is not an elected position like governor, or lieutenant governor. It is a position however that gives you the ability to stop run away spending…since we are over 3 billion in debt on your watch, it seems you have not been doing this.
Your sponsorship of SB5599 which donates all of Washington States electoral votes to whom ever wins the popular vote for president is a downright betrayal of the state you say you represent…
Perhaps this is why you DID NOT advertise your sponsorship of SB 5599 in your campaign literature and seem hesitant to mention you were the senate majority whip over a senate that has racked an ocean of debt…
If you truly represented the citizens of the state of Washington as you claim, you would not burden them with such unnecessary enormous debt and give away their votes for president…
Seattle and the west side of the state has enough senators, the 6th district needs one to represent our interest…not theirs…
I hope the voters will send a strong message this November; we want our elected officials to represent us, not the folks that happen to give our electeds a great deal of money…
TheRain on October 09 at 8:32 a.m.
Given that the Governor doesn’t get to vote on legislation, I find your 97% figure suspect.
Given that Brown got a 32% and Marr a 63% from the Association of Washington Business this past session, your assertion that Marr is in lockstep with her is kind of silly, too.
http://www.awb.org/2010LegislativeReview/Enom/pdf/WABusiness_LegReview_2010.pdf
But maybe that’s a hiccup. Surely if I go to the PDC website I won’t see any support for Marr from business, right?
Well, there’s the Aerospace Future Alliance. And Ambient Solutions. AstraZeneca. Avalon Health Care Management. Rob Brewster, the Building Owners Association, and Burlington-Northern. The Certified Public Accountants PAC. Dealers Auto Auction, Dreger Security, Eli Lilly, Holland America, Huppins, Hyatt.
That’s just through the letter H, alphabetically, and only the max donors. You say “he can’t stand on his own reputation”, and yet his reputation seems good enough for an awful lot of people in the business community to write him a check. Maybe you’ll dismiss it as patronage, maybe cognitive dissonance, but at the end of the day trying the ultraliberal smear on someone with the business background and backing of a Chris Marr is weaksauce, indeed.
TheRain on October 09 at 9:06 a.m.
“Mr. Marr, you represent the citizens of the 6th that elected you, not the entire state of Washington. That’s the job for the state wide elected offices. Looking at your campaign financing via Public Disclosure Commission, most of your funding (sixty percent) comes from outside of your district; with over twelve percent coming from out of state (about $45,000).”
That’s a fun game to play. Let’s see where it leads us, given that Baumgartner has raised about $242,000.
Michael Baumgartner has raised $20,274 from out-of-state donors, or about 8.3%. Less than Marr, but given that Marr’s the incumbent, is this really a surprise? Is Baumgartner 7% beholden to out-of-state interests, the way you imply Marr is? $55,000 of his money comes from the Senate Republican Campaign Committee in Olympia, almost a fourth (23%) of his total fundraising. Does this mean that Michael Baumgartner is just another Olympia insider? Add up all his donations from Olympia, Bellevue, Pullman, Pasco, the Valley (4th LD) and other places clearly outside the 6th and it comes up to about $122,000. That’s 50%. Add that to the out-of-state donations and you’re at about 60%, the exact same figure you lobbed at Marr.
If you want to use “follow the money” as a political purity test, be ready for it to cut both ways.
hawken on October 09 at 9:53 a.m.
Marr says look at my record… We have Mr. Marr. As has been stated you have been a tax and spend, big government advocate your whole career. With the exception, of course, in an election year.
Even in your video interviews, you show yourself to not be a friend of small business. Surely, you must understand that the way to knock down our high unemployment rate is to restructure the huge amount of taxes and regulation that Washington state, small business owners must carry upon their backs.
Last week I was in the waiting room at Dishman Dodge with one other man. In our conversation, he informed me that he has owned a small business for over 30 yrs in Spokane… and that never before has he had such a “state government burden” from taxes and regulation. He said, “I’m holding on by my finger nails just to keep my doors open.” He also said, “State government is making it virtually impossible to stay in business.”
Marr also equivocates on whether the state should get out of the liquor business…. beer and wine sales, ok…. liquor, he’s not so sure. Clearly, the state should not be doing anything that can be done effectively by the private sector. Marr’s concern is public safety (part of his large union base), fire and police and their take in the state wholesale and retail of liquor… a state run monopoly.
If for no other reason, Marr should be replaced because of his co-sponsorship of SB 5599 which would do away with the electoral college to elect a president. I’ll say more about that in a follow-up post. There’s just too much say in a single post.
Marr, by his own words, as vague as they are, is in favor of another gas tax. That’s why I buy most of my gas in Idaho… every chance I get. Marr doesn’t understand that when you raise taxes, tax revenues go down! When you lower taxes, tax revenues go up! Refer to John F. Kennedy (Dem) and Ronald Reagan (Rep). When tax rates go down, the rest of us have more money to spend, invest, grow our small business, hire more employees whom also pay more tax, and nourish our economy. No nation has ever taxed its citizens into prosperity.
Marr, by his own admission, says that he failed to look for more savings in the state budget. Seems to me, that our massive state budget is the first place a COMPETENT legislator would look to be more efficient with the use of taxpayer money. Where have you been Mr. Marr???? being a good steward of of the hard earned tax dollars that have been entrusted to you? How disingenuous, that only when you are up for re-election, you become opposed to more new taxes.
Yes, Mr. Marr, we have looked at your record. It’s time for you to go. Was it not president Clinton who said… “It’s the economy stupid!” PRIORITY #1.
Baumgartner, on the other hand wins me over with his number one priority…. Determine how much money we have to work with and then prioritize our budget accordingly…. Sounds like what the rest of us have to do in running our households.
Prioritize, on its face, means there are “limits” as to what government can do, because there are limits on what tax payers can pay. Big government, on the other hand, says “limits?… “Priorities”??? No, no…. more taxes!
Baumgartner understands that small business provides 90% of our jobs… So if you are among the 10% whom don’t have a job, it’s because small business in our state is treading water.
If you support more jobs and smaller government then Baumgartner is the man.
misjustice on October 09 at 10:20 a.m.
I watched the debate on KSPS Thursday evening. Mr. Marr gave as good as he got during the, often times, rough and tumble exchanges/rebuttals. IMO Baumgartner lost the debate but has a good chance of winning the election, although he won’t get my vote.
hawken on October 09 at 10:27 a.m.
Now, concerning Marr’s co-sponsorship of SB5599…. This bill commits our state to join a hand full of other states, to do away with the way we elect a president, by going to a “popular vote.”
Thank goodness that it would take 3/4 of the states (38) to ratify an amendment to the US constitution to trash our Electoral College System!
Here’s what the SB5599 says (Marr a co-sponsor, signed by Our current governor):
“An act relating to approving the entry of Washington into the agreement among the states to elect the president by national popular vote on the same terms and conditions as entered into by the states Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey.”
Here’s what it means. Dump the electoral college system and replace it with a national popular vote. That means that the minority in number, but heavier populated states/regions will decide who is to be president. The bill is a calculated, proposed departure from our current, constitutional government.
Whomever is elected president, must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern, PLUS, a sufficient distribution of that support nationwide among our sovereign states.
Otherwise, we risk another civil war of some kind, chaos and destruction as states and regions whom are not represented, begin seceding from the union. The election of President Lincoln was one of the leading reasons we had a civil war… the South thought their views were not properly represented…
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm
Amending our US Constitution is tricky business, very risky and is fraught with unintended consequences
Our Electoral College contains a well conceived, series of checks and balances to effectively represent the whole nation both by popular vote and national support of the majority, concerning the election of a president.
if, a candidate receives a clear majority of the popular vote, that candidate will automatically have enough electoral votes to be elected president. Thus, the popular vote already has prominence in the way we elect our president.
If neither candidate receives a clear majority of the popular vote, the election goes to the candidate with the best nation-wide distribution of popular votes throughout the states, according to the majority of electoral college votes. Popular vote again is the leading standard as to whom will be elected president. Remember, for a president to govern effectively he/she must have the “nation-wide” support of the electorate.
If neither candidate gets a majority of electoral college votes, the choice of president is made by the States according to the number of congressmen they have respectively, in the U.S. House of Representatives. Popular vote again is the master. This time according to the election of US Congressmen by the people of the states through “popular vote.”
The electoral college systems is a brilliant, well conceived, process that seeks popular vote, regional and national support of the electorate in order for the president to govern more effectively…. and to guard the cohesiveness of our union which is made up of sovereign states.
Marr’s bill would change all of that… It needs to be repealed during the next legislative session! That will not happen if we leave in place our current representatives.
I’ll stick with the wisdom that has carefully and constitutionally maintained the health of our union and an orderly transfer of power every four/eight years in electing a president…. and so should you. This brilliant system has worked quite well from the beginning.
I will not be voting for Chris Marr for this reason and the other reasons I cite above in my 9:53 am posting. I hope that you as well, will vote to replace Marr.
Scoutster on October 09 at 11:18 a.m.
Baumgartner will probably win just because he is GOP and not a lot of critical thinkers around here.
Baumgartner is probably a fine fellow, but he’s trying to cut in a little high. It really would be sending an amateur in at 4th and goal. (All those who complained about BHO’s experience..where are you now!?)
It will be on the job training, but of course it always is.
JBlim on October 09 at 11:24 a.m.
hawken and matt monroe actually believe that voters in the State of Washington no longer have the right to vote for president.
proof here:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/07/shun-attack-ads/#c202774
When people start believing their own rhetoric, it’s time to quietly back away and move to safety.
matt monroe also thinks all the C02 in the air falls to the bottom of the atmosphere asphyxiating us. It’s not clear why (or if??) he thinks we are still living:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/sep/19/climate-concern-no-scam/#c198142
ZagChuck on October 09 at 11:29 a.m.
@ the Rain
You’re right about Marr, he’s not a typical “Tax and Spend Liberal.” In fact he is an Over-Tax and Over-Spend Liberal, I should have been more clear.
Chris Marr is a shining example of what is wrong with our state. Why did we (the taxpayers) spend $22,000 a day for extra session work? It was because the left refused to attempt to balance the budget properly during the regular session. Why couldn’t they balance the budget after raising taxes nearly $1 billion dollars? Because they are incompetent at their duties.
In short, we had to pay them extra so they could balance the budget. Instead, they overcharged us, over taxed us, and over spent the tax increase so much that we still don’t have a balanced budget.
You clearly think that’s good enough, but I know we deserve better!
You say Marr is not responsible for the tax hikes, the over-spending, the over-growth of government. I say the proof is there for all to see.
Marr is as liberal as they come, despite your protests and his disingenuous advertizing claiming the same. His recent run to the center notwithstanding, the people can clearly see the truth. He’s as far to left as Lisa Brown, Gregoire, Murray and Cantwell. As Whip he’s able to provide himself cover, but the people are smarter than he and the far left credit them.
The Marr-ing of the 6th District needs to end.
liarsinnews on October 09 at 11:48 a.m.
I`ll never forget how CHRIS MARR helped the developers of River Park Square parking garage with their non-profit group to push for and sell illegal muni bonds. The non-profit, run by attorneys, were caught by the IRS. MARR, was the head cheerleader on behalf of the Cowles Dynasty in the scandalous venture and helped screw the taxpayers by forcing them to pay off the huge debt of tens of millions of dollars, and taking through the year 2030 to pay it off. Notwithstanding, the $26,000,000.00 price tag the taxpayers paid for it, was with a inflated value that was obscene. CHRIS MARR, deserves the BOOT!
spokanecougar on October 09 at 11:50 a.m.
Man, I love the stupidity and short term memory loss of republicans.
hawken on October 09 at 11:50 a.m.
Jblim:
please re-read my posting at 10:27 am… that is making an assumption that you read it in the first place.
misjustice on October 09 at 11:56 a.m.
Here is a link for the debate. You can stream it online.
http://video.ksps.org/video/1609918175
liarsinnews on October 09 at 12:26 p.m.
I love the political amnesia regarding the moronic logic displayed by “some” of the democrats. I personally do not belong to either party and have not for over 2 decades. I sleep better voting for the man/woman that I believe shall attempt to show integrity and is honest. zzzzzzzzzzz
spokanecougar on October 09 at 12:55 p.m.
Really Dick? Political amnesia? I think that would be the republicans you are talking about. What party was in power for 12 years until 2006? What party held the white house for 8 years until 2008? It seems the republicans have the political amnesia for forgetting what parties policies have got this country into this mess.
Then to top it off they are to stupid to know that nobody could have fixed the mess this country was left in after Cheney/Bush and then they get pissed just because they hate black people and that some tribesman from Africa is actually trying to fix the craphole that Cheney and Bush left us in.
liarsinnews on October 09 at 1:24 p.m.
Spokanecougar: You say you thought I was talking about republicans. Really. The more I read your comments it would appear your dumber than I thought you were. Where in my post did you read I was pointing my finger at the GOP? Read my opine again and explain where I was talking about them. I was really referring to your post about the memory loss stuff and your calling them stupid. Stand up and be counted. I am aware of course, the pseudo intellectual pygmies of both parties talking at the same time.
TheRain on October 09 at 1:54 p.m.
“Chris Marr is a shining example of what is wrong with our state. Why did we (the taxpayers) spend $22,000 a day for extra session work? It was because the left refused to attempt to balance the budget properly during the regular session. Why couldn’t they balance the budget after raising taxes nearly $1 billion dollars? Because they are incompetent at their duties.”
I’ll note, first, that the state GOP is calling for a special session RIGHT NOW because of the budget emergency. Are you going to criticize them as well?
And doesn’t the fact that it went to a special session show how thoroughly the conversation was had? To listen to some of the folks on these boards you’d think that they repealed the Eyman initiative and raised hundreds of millions in taxes in a week then spent the next 2 months diddling their interns, but the program cuts that happened and the tax increases that happened didn’t get finalized until overtime. That’s being thorough.
JBlim on October 09 at 2:04 p.m.
attn hawken, version Oct 9:
“matt said: “Chris Marr sponsored SB 5599 which effectively takes away Washington States voters right to vote for president of the United States.”
I said: “That’s just a plain lie and you know it matt. Maybe you should actually read the bill: . . .”
to which hawken, version Oct 7, said:
Jblim;
“It is not a lie. Shame on you again for making such accusations… ”
So I ask hawken, version Oct 9, do Washington States voters have the right to vote for president of the United States or not?
Yes or no, please. Simple question.
hawken on October 09 at 3:33 p.m.
Jblim:
Obviously, you do not see, nor understand that this NOT a “simple question.”
If SB5599 was ratified by 38 states… the most populated states and regions, ie… East Coast, CA, IL, PA, etc… would have more weight to their votes and influence in a presidential election with a popular vote only..
The Electoral College system takes this into consideration on a nationwide basis, to insure that any president elected will have both the popular and nation-wide support of all the states… which he/she needs to govern effectively.
If the popular vote system were in place today, it would “effectively” take away the votes of many Washington voters whom would no longer be represented by an “electoral vote”.
This problem was anticipated in our constitution… thus the electoral college system,,, so that the whole nation is represented with both the popular vote and the electoral vote… not just the heavily, populated states.
Again,,,, our constitutional form of government anticipated these problems which is why we have the electoral college system.
if you will carefully read my previous posting on the question, hopefully, you will better understand why it is that many Washington voters would “effectively” loose their vote for president… If we went to a popular vote only.
Does this help?
hawken on October 09 at 4:14 p.m.
Jblim: let me try a simplified explanation.
I’m a conservative, you’re a liberal.
We elect US Congressmen/women from Washington state, with the popular vote, whom then each represent an electoral vote.
Democrat congressmen represent you with their electoral vote…. Republican congressmen represent me with their electoral vote.
If we went to a popular vote only, for president, there would be no electoral vote representation for either you or me, our state or our region. Thus, we have “effectively” lost our vote for president…. because we have lost our electoral vote.
Now, The East coast region is more heavily populated than the West coast region. Thus, more votes would be cast on the East Coast Region than on the West Coast Region.
-Therefore, the East Coast Region would have the advantage in electing a president over the West Coast Region.
-The East Coast Region would receive political FAVOR over the West Coast Region since that’s where the larger number votes come from.
-The president would understandably sign and veto bills that favored the East Coast Region over the West Coast Region.
-The West Coast Region would soon become irate which would then take us into some kind of regional civil war.
As I have explained above, in detail, the electoral college system is first and foremost empowered by the popular vote at each step in the process at the LOCAL LEVEL in EVERY STATE.
Just as important, the electoral college system provides a president with not only the support of the popular, national vote, but also state and regional support, guarding against a national schism between states and regions whom are not properly represented in a presidential vote.
Take away the electoral vote and you “effectively” take away the presidential vote from many Americans here is Washington state and the Nation at large.
JBlim on October 09 at 4:18 p.m.
hawken, I know exactly what SB5599 does, quit explaining it to me. My problem is that you agree with the notion that Washington state’s voters no longer will have a vote for president. The effect of the bill is exactly the same thing as the direct election of the president by the voters. Nobody is “loosing” their vote. Quit distorting the truth. If you need falsehoods to argue your position, perhaps your position isn’t worth defending.
hawken on October 09 at 4:33 p.m.
Jblim;
I am not defending my position in this case. I responded to YOUR question, YOUR question,,,,, in good faith offering a detailed answer.
You deny the obvious as I have clearly demonstrated.
Dazzeetrader11 on October 09 at 4:42 p.m.
We can vote for the presient…our vote goes to a collective vote Blim ( don’t waste our time since you know that). Wa St voters do vote. We’d like THAT VOTE to be known and not be bundled with other states. Marr likes that. Most don’t.
J..compliments to you for posting that link to the debate. It’s obvious to anyone with the data in hand that Frnch has a commnad of the situation in Spokane….secondly Marr has said SO many things untrue. He’s a master of NOT telling the full truth. He says what he THINKS will sway the voter.
Baumgartner’s background is spectacular and it is in E Wa. SO what if Baumgartner was away in academic training and service. He came back home to raise his family. Seems quite reasonable. Marr’s arguments look desparate. No logic at all. Marr looks like he’s exposed and looks very nervous. He should be nervous.
Looks like he’ll be finding another car lot. OR he’ll be getting a job with those who he arranged the Publics’ money for. He’s feathered his bed like few have. He has raised taxes and expanded the budget by over $800 million. For him to deny those 2 fundamental things prove he lies or thinks the taxpayers are plain stupid. The record clearly shows he added a nice $134 million in tax. Might not be the soda pop tax….he did it in so many other ways. All this in 2010…when Wa St was in trouble financially. Boy this guy’s a goof.
mvymvy on October 09 at 4:59 p.m.
Support for a national popular vote remained steady, at 77% overall, after the National Popular Vote Bill was signed by Washington Governor Chris Gregoire. A survey of 800 Washington state voters conducted on May 5–6, 2009 showed 77% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states. This 77% support level is the same overall percentage registered on the identical question in a December 2–3, 2008 poll in Washington. Percentages by subgroups were similar in both polls.
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in the May 2009 poll was 88% among Democrats, 65% among Republicans, and 73% among others.
By gender, support in the May 2009 poll was 85% among women and 67% among men.
By age, support in the May 2009 poll was 73% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 78% for those older than 65.
An additional question was asked in the May 2009 poll in which respondents were asked to make a three-way choice among three alternative methods for awarding the state’s electoral votes, with the following results:
* 73% favored a national popular vote;
* 16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district (as is currently done in Maine and Nebraska); and
* 11% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#WA_2009MAY
mvymvy on October 09 at 5:04 p.m.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored — 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states, Washington, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls..
Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state … they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
mvymvy on October 09 at 5:09 p.m.
Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support It would no longer matter who won a state.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Nine state legislative chambers in the smallest states have passed the bill. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
Of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections— NH(4), NM (5), and NV (5). These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) states’ total 166 electoral votes.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.
With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates’ attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split — five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
In 2004:
• 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
• The 6 states that provided the Democrats with their largest vote margins in 2004 were CA, IL, MD, MS, NJ, and NY.
• All 11 of the Southern states (the old Confederacy) voted for Bush.
• The 11 southern states provided Bush with a bigger margin (4,653,558) than the 6 states with the largest Kerry vote margins (4,428,268) in 2004.
JBlim on October 09 at 5:31 p.m.
hawken says:
“Take away the electoral vote and you “effectively” take away the presidential vote from many Americans here is Washington state and the Nation at large.”
So if all the states adopted the pact, and all the voters’ votes in all the states were “effectively taken away” as you say, then we could never have another president I guess, unless, that is, your analysis is baloney. What would happen, hawken? You’re not making much sense.
hawken on October 09 at 5:46 p.m.
mvymvy:
Whom I think might really be Chris Marr behind the veil? If it is not Chris Marr…. then the block, copy and paste you all see above is probably provided by Chris Marr to one of his disciples…. to be sure….
Thank goodness that it will take 38 states to ratify a constitutional amendment before this nation embraces your proposed train wreck.
Fortunately, the people of America see through the foolishness of what you what to do…. hopefully, that will remain the same throughout the infinite future.
You pump out line after line of stats, which we are apparently supposed to accept on face value, along with your interpretation of those stats… when the real problem is that you are still very angry that Bush was elected over Gore, in keeping with the constitution.
So, your solution…. amend the constitution to your benefit!
Anytime we start tinkering around with the constitution, it is not only dangerously risky,,,, but fraught with unintended consequences.
The founders understood this. That’s why it will take 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
Nevertheless, your proposed train wreck, makes for good political fodder for the liberal left.
Most of us, the majority, understand,,,, liberal, moderate, independent and conservative, that such an amendment would greatly benefit the liberal world view…
Of course, that is something that you would never acknowledge publicly, outside the closed doors of the liberal caucus.
One need only look at the current political makeup of the East and West Coast, the major population centers of America.
What you propose is great for the liberal world view (20% of America currently)… It is a pending disaster for Moderates, Independents and Conservatives.
More importantly, It is a pending catastrophe for our union,,, as I have demonstrated above.
hawken on October 09 at 5:50 p.m.
It has been my experience in the past, that mvymvy posts his block and copy, and then disappears in the darkness…. It will be interesting to see if that is again the case here.
hawken on October 09 at 6:02 p.m.
Blim:
It is painfully clear to me and I’m sure to others as well, that you have little understanding of the genius of the Electoral College, based upon your most recent, absurd, posting.
What is a bit frightening is that many your liberal colleagues, seemingly, share the same degree of ignorance that you display in your post above.
I mean no personal attack upon you personally… only criticism of your obvious ignorance, based upon your 5:31pm post as it relates to the the constitutional, checks and balances built within the Electoral College System by people whom were much more accomplished in their thinking than you or me.
mvymvy … and his disciples, whom I must count you among, are banking on ignorance in order to get their train wreck to a constitutional amendment.
Ignorance: Per Websters
“the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness”
Please see my response to mvymvy…
hawken on October 09 at 6:10 p.m.
Blim: Like many other liberals… you set up a “Straw Man” argument…. to quote you….
“….then we could never have another president I guess…”
This might be helpful to you in the future to formulate a more logical defense of your liberal position.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
To summarize; Your distorted version of my position….
“….then we could never have another president I guess…”
Is a “Straw Man.”
JBlim on October 09 at 6:34 p.m.
hawken:
You NOT the strawman said:
“Take away the electoral vote and you “effectively” take away the presidential vote from many Americans here is Washington state and the Nation at large.”
If all states adopted the pact, then accord to you, not the strawman, those states would effectively lose their votes. So just explain yourself, without calling me a liberal or stupid and going off on some other tangent. How could all the states’ voters lose their vote? Just answer the question.
hawken on October 09 at 6:49 p.m.
Blim:
Clearly…. you need to spend some time studying the brilliance of the Electoral College System… which clearly you do not understand, based upon your repeated, recent, posts. You are quite adept in parroting the liberal world view.
We are going in circles again and again… and I cannot help you anymore at this point.
Also, please refer to “logical fallacies”…. which demonstrably would help you as well…. in the defense of your liberal world view.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
You have every right to hold your liberal world view…
I respect that right.
You do not have a right to think you can spew your liberal venom and illogic, with impunity or immunity from challenge.
I’m moving on with you for the time being.
Albert on October 09 at 6:53 p.m.
Nothing personal, however ALL incumbents need to go…no exceptions. Time for a massive overhaul of the graft, corruption, and ongoing deception that WE The People are witnessing throughout the rat infested ship. Change is a good thing. Chris Marr is a good fellow, Cathy Rodgers and Patty are “so - so”, however they ALL need to go. Just a thought for the evening.
JBlim on October 09 at 7:40 p.m.
hawken, I’ll tell you what happens since you apparently don’t get it. People in all the states cast their votes for President. The popular vote is counted. If Candidate X wins the popular vote, then the states (all the state were part of the pact in my hypothetical question) cast all their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote. The will of the people is thereby ensured. Nobody loses their vote. You couldn’t answer my question because your theory makes no sense. If the Electoral College is so great, maybe you’d like to repeal the 17th Amendment and have state legislatures elect our Senators like the some of the Tea Baggers are proposing.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea-party-call-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment-causing-problems-for-gop-candidates.php
liarsinnews on October 09 at 8:40 p.m.
I cut and pasted the following, from a west side publication. It shows what Chris Marr thinks about the voters approved initiative.
“State Sen. Chris Marr (D-6, Spokane), the Democratic majority whip in Olympia, is sponsoring a bill that will gut the voter-approved renewable energy initiative, I-937.”
Dazzeetrader11 on October 09 at 10:56 p.m.
He’s not to be trusted Dick. Says one thing and, with malice of forethought, dows another.
He is the biggest recipient of special interest moeny. Big from energy companies and certainly Avista and it’s PAC ( untraceable).
This guy got mugged in his debate. Baumgartner clearly superior…and why?…because he’s honest and forthright.
If one has the time actually dig and dig on the net, there’s a lot more things like what Mr Adams found. Might sound partisan but Marr’s is one of the biggest deceivers ( didn’t want to use the ext word but it begins with an “L”). Slick talking used car salesman. How anybody could vote for this lil “L” is beyond me.
Says hedidn’t raise taxes and wouldn’t….all the while the record clearly shows he did by well over $100 million.
Wouldn’t vote for a higher budget too as he was being the lil hero and was reigning in expenses….all the while he voted for more than $800 milion in budget increase.
His whole record is rife with this junk. Vote Baumgartner. I hope Mike beats this lil fool by 10% which is above the 6.5%margin Marr lost by in the primary.
And when he’s beaten, I hope the voters lok hard at Lisa Brown who is the REAL ringleader in all this. If you E Wa people knew what he really thought, you’d be furious.,,
Scoutster on October 09 at 11:10 p.m.
SpokaneCougar…
Don’t worry about Dick Adams not knowing how dumb you are. He didn’t know how dumb I was either. He told me so not too long ago.
He is very poor at gauging dumbness, apparently.
eagleproducer on October 10 at 9:49 a.m.
Anyway…
I love Baumgarden’s comment about too many contractors being used to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. First of all, what does that have to do with local politics? Secondly, he worked for a State Department contractor, of the type allowed to employ rendition and use deadly force. I want to know exactly what he did, who he did it for and why. Is he calling for a draft to spread the sacrifice beyond the 1% of U.S. citizens currently fighting the war on terror?
Baumgardner is a carpetbagging mercenary involved in the domestic affairs of other nations. He has more blood on his hands than Lady McBeth. His loyalty was to a paycheck, not our country. If he looked around carefully he’d find plenty of people to help right here in the district he wants to represent. While driving between Spokane and Pullman didn’t he see some small rural communities in Eastern Washington that could use “economic development?” But no, while Marr was working to confront those problems in his home and country, Mike was galavanting the globe for the likes of Blackwater making more people hate the U.S.
Lulubelle on October 10 at 12:28 p.m.
I find it a bit disconcerting that Mr. Baumgartner apparently worked for Civilian Police Int’l. an organization connected to Kellogg Brown & Root which is connected to Halliburton and war profiteering. Then, at least early on in his candidacy, he touted this as military service…..but sounds to me like he was one of those highly paid private contractors. A little misleading.
I’d also like to know what kind of “consulting” he did between the time he was in Africa in 1999 and hired on to go to Iraq in 2004.
It all just seems a little vague and fuzzy…..kinda of like his ideas on how he’ll shrink government and still provide basic services all the while rolling back taxes.
eagleproducer on October 10 at 6:51 p.m.
lulu: You are right about The Baum’s attempt to link himself to the military in ads during the primary. I saw the same thing. It made me do some research to find exactly what you have. I’m sure The Baum will be more than forthcoming about the gaps in his resume.
You are also correct in your analysis of his addlepated platform.
It is more than interesting that a candidate from the right with an Ivy League background is never yoked with the millstone of being labeled an elitist.
mvymvy on October 11 at 11:04 a.m.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation’s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
The winner-take-all rule is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district — a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.
Dazzeetrader11 on October 12 at 2:50 p.m.
So after all is said and done…why change what we have? Answer? Change will favor the Dems who aim to keep power. Nothing more and nothing less. So it goes with Chris Marr….
misjustice on October 12 at 9:58 p.m.
KHQ says Baumgartner deleted questions from station’s Facebook Q & A
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2010/oct/11/khq-says-baumgartner-deleted-questions-stations-facebook-q/