Comments on: The Mayor is Dead. Long Live the Mayor

By: Kleyau

Kleyau — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:33:46 +0000

It’s a Missouri thing. We elected a Mel Carnahan as governor after he died. Because a dead man was better than John Ashcroft.

By: catgirl

catgirl — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:32:42 +0000

I feel bad for the candidate who lost to him. That’s a blow to anyone’s self-esteem.

By: Phillip IV

Phillip IV — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:47:05 +0000

Seems it was too late to remove the deceased mayor’s name because absentee voting had already begun, so the ballots could no longer be legally changed.

The other candidate was a sitting alderman, however, so I’d assume he was serious about contending the office and qualified to hold it. Unless that guy did something that made him really unpopular since being elected alderman, it apparently did come down to sentimentality.

By: Romeo Vitelli

Romeo Vitelli — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:35:07 +0000

I’m reminded of the 1991 Louisiana Governor’s race when David Duke was trying to unseat Edwin Edwards. Edwards won even though he was known to be corrupt because nobody wanted Duke as governor. A pundit said later that “it’s hard when you have to choose between a crook and a Nazi.”

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:36:32 +0000

Bob, go find out who the other candidate in the election was and how many people had already voted absentee and then tell me whether it makes sense. If there’s no provision for changing the ballot, you work with the ballot you have. If splitting the vote between the dead guy and a write-in means someone incompetent could end up mayor, you vote for the dead guy.

Just because all you can see from where you sit is sentiment, just because sentiment makes for a prettier newspaper story, that doesn’t mean that’s all there was.

By: NewEnglandBob

NewEnglandBob — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:24:28 +0000

No Stephanie Z, it does not make a lot of sense.

It was “several weeks after he died”.

Why not elect George Bush as mayor or Barack Obama or Atilla the Hun or Zeus.

All it shows is that the majority of the voters are sentimental fools. If it is not important to elect a real mayor then why have a vote at all?

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:11:50 +0000

This makes a lot more sense than it seems to on first reading. In a town this size, with a long-term mayor, there will be three or four people, max, who would have both the skills and desire to be mayor (probably fewer). Unless one of the others is very unhappy with the mayor for some reason, they’re probably content to serve on the council.

Whoever was running against the mayor was unlikely to be a “real” candidate. Voting for the dead mayor gets you a council appointment instead of the unserious candidate. It’s a very reasonable vote.

By: minusRusty

minusRusty — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:10:48 +0000

Well, the best politicians are dead politicians, so…………..

(Okay, maybe not. But still…)

-Rusty