The upcoming Nov. 4 election has the usual array of races with bad choices, or where bad incumbents will coast to reelection with no significant (or worthy) opposition. But this time around, there are also some truly exciting opportunities to usher in significant change that will directly affect the lives of a lot of people--especially a lot of kids.

Being an off-year, the races are all local. Especially given the absence of famous movie stars from the ballot (sorry, Jean Godden doesn't count), the turnout is likely to be low. All of that works in favor of a continuation of the strong anti-incumbent mood that characterized the results in September's primary. Will it be enough to withstand the inevitable flood of well-connected money that anti-incumbent primaries also trigger? We can only hope.

And, so, here's our helpful guide to throwing the bums out. The usual caveats apply: This is one opinion. Take it as such, not as an authoritative pick. Synthesize information and opinions, do your homework, and decide for yourself. And, above all, don't rely on voting to change things; change takes sustained effort, not just an occasional ballot.

But putting good people in office never hurt. And, unlike some years, there are several very good ones who may well win this time.

King County Assessor: The Democrat, Scott Noble, has been in office for years and done a reasonably good job, His opponent, Republican Richard Pope, is a reactionary semi-nut case who runs for a different office, and different type of office, every year. Scott Noble.

King County Council: Among the various races and uncontested incumbents, only two of these seats are really up for grabs. In Pos. 9 (Issaquah), Rep. David Irons faces the guy he ousted in a primary four years ago, Brian Derdowski, running as a Democrat this time. Derdowski has also been prominent in Green Party politics, and he has his Libertarian streaks, too--an independent voice that, in his decade on county council, infuriated his elephantine colleagues but endeared him to community activists. Among other things, the Derd was an early and active opponent of WTO and has spent the last four years consulting with rabble-rousing community groups. He's awesome. Brian Derdowski.

In Pos. 12 (southeast King County), Rep. appointee Steve Hammonds survived two well-connected right wing wackos, Pam Roach and Phil Fortunato, in the primary--but now he faces Dem. Barbara Heavey, a trial lawyer who has her stuff together. She's smart, articulate, progressive, and a much better choice. Barbara Heavey.

As for the others--no matter how good (sorry, Larry Gossett), never vote for someone running unopposed. Vote in Joseph Olchefske if you have to. We hear he needs a job.

The same goes for judgeships. The only one on the ballot this time is the Court of Appeals, Div. #1, Dist. #1, Pos. 3, where Anne Ellington is unopposed. Say, what's Paul Schell doing these days?

Port of Seattle: Two of the five port commissioners are up for reelection this time. The Port is easily the most corrupt public body in the area, and that's saying a lot--these two, Bob Edwards (Pos. 2) and Clare Nordquist (Pos. 5) are a wholesale part of the problem. But, almost unbelievably, both drew opponents who would be significantly better.

Edwards faces Jim Baker, who's been critical of both the Port's cronyism and its environmentally destructive tendencies (or have you noticed that the Port has illegally plowed ahead with an unneeded third runway through sensitive wetlands?). Nordquist got Alec Fisken, who mounted a decent run for city council a couple of years ago and who represents, at least by mainstream standards, a strong voice for fiscal accountability and reform (though we still wish Christopher Cain had survived the primary instead). These two challengers would be a marked improvement on the status quo. Jim Baker and Alec Fisken.

Seattle City Council Pos. 1: Judy Nicastro has her faults; but, of the five candidates who challenged her in the primary, the worst one survived. Jean Godden is both unqualified and clueless, part of Seattle's cocktail party elite who see keeping the rabble out of power as part of their civic duty, sort of like joining the garden club. This is how we got Jim Compton in office; Godden would be worse, an auto-vote for Paul Allen and Greg Nickels and who, unlike Compton, doesn't even seem to have any ideas of her own. The still-young Nicastro has been maddeningly erratic in her first term, but at least she does, in fact, stick up for renters (Godden is also being pushed hard by landlord groups) and the city's disadvantaged. Judy Nicastro..

Seattle City Council Pos. 3: Unlike Paul Schell, progressive incumbent Peter Steinbrueck never changed his name to simplify the spelling, but we won't hold it against him. His opponent, Zander Batchelder, has no prayer of winning, thankfully. Peter Steinbrueck.

Seattle City Council Pos. 5: An unappealing choice. Make no mistake, Tom Rasmussen, a longtime city bureaucrat, does not represent-- well, anyone, really. He would certainly be no great shakes on council. However, his opponent, Margaret Pageler, is the most senior and reactionary of council members--among many other things, she helped push Mark Sidran's "civility" agenda into law and has fought environmentalists tooth and nail on a host of issues. And she's effective, which in this case is not good. Pageler's so bad that it's hard to recommend skipping this race, though it's tempting. Tom Rasmussen.

Seattle City Council Pos. 7: Judy Nicastro and Jim Compton got most of the attention for Strippergate (and, in Compton's case, Paul Allen joyrides), but it's first term incumbent Heidi Wills who should have drawn the fire--for not just Strippergate, but for hauling in record amounts of money and standing for nothing and no one in her council votes (excepting, of course, her donors). By contrast, David Della is a local legend--a labor and International District activist who's been fighting all the right battles for two decades. David Della.

Seattle City Council Pos. 9: Jim Compton, a former television journalist (sic), is, if anything, worse than Pageler--a pompous blowhard who's spent his first term sucking up to an out-of-control police department, playing loyal foot soldier to Allen and other big money interests, and not even bothering to mask his contempt for citizen activists. Alas, his opponent, John Manning, is no Tom Rasmussen: Manning, an ex-cop, had to resign his council seat in 1995 following his third domestic violence complaint--an incident for which he served jail time but which he still dismisses as no big deal.

Fortunately, there is a solution. We have, on the one hand, an arrogant, unqualified celebrity, and on the other, a burly guy who seems to have a problem with thwacking women around. Why pick between these two when we can get all of their qualifications in one person? Mike Tyson.

Seattle Popular Monorail Authority Board Member: Only two of the monorail board's 18 seats are elected, at a point in the monorail's development where independence and accountability are essential, as the project shows signs of the sort of insiderism and myopia that helped turn Sound Transit into a boondoggle. Alas, a lot has happened on this front since September--and it's caused me to rethink both of these races.

In the first, Cindi Laws got the endorsements of everyone from Democratic Party insiders to grass roots activists to ETS!, and she won easily. But her public statements since then--as in an election profile in the Oct. 16 Seattle Times--show her bullshit detectors on "low" and her arrogance on "high." By contrast, her opponent, James Egan, is hitting the right notes, especially in talking about the need to watch funds and save money. The "People's" Monorail is actually set up as a public-private partnership--meaning that as station sites get selected and real estate deals made, we need more than cheerleading. James Egan.

In the other race, Cleve Stockmeyer is a good guy--but he's also that peculiar product of this system's history, the monorail True Believer. Tim Kerr, by contrast, has worked analyzing state bonds--a history that would come in very, very handy as the monorail issues their bonds--and says he wants to be "your financial watchdog." That's what we need--not cultists. The fight to build the monorail is done; now we need to shift gears and ensure the public doesn't get screwed in the process by the inevitable parasites that monorail head and consummate insider wheeler-dealer Joel Horn likes to have drinks with. Tim Kerr.

Seattle School District: Think of this as a package deal. Three incumbents, from a board that has run Seattle's schools into the ground, and a "what me worry?" PTSA mom are opposed by four smart, principled reformers, any of whom would individually qualify as among the best people running for any position this year. Three of those four won handily in the primary, and all the board has done since then is turn the search for a new superintendent into an embarrassing farce. Along with first-term school board member Mary Bass, this is a chance for progressive activists to gain a solid majority on Seattle's school board--and, as a result, to turn on its ear a district that for years has been the epitome of oblivious fiscal waste, arrogance, and contempt for both the general public and its 42,000 students.

Respectively: Bland incumbent Barbara Peterson faces Sally Soriano, a progressive educator and the single local activist most responsible for building and organizing opposition to the WTO in 1999. Steve Brown, chair of the financial committee that didn't even notice $32 million missing in the budget--and then "fixed" the shortfall by protecting bloated administration and taking it out on the classrooms instead--was outpolled in the primary by African-American activist Darlene Flynn, who has a particular background as a budget and policy analyst that sure woulda come in handy. Brita Butler-Wall also trounced her opponent, board president Nancy "what, me think?" Waldman, in the primary, and that was before Waldman averred that none of the superintendent finalists had any problems in their history whatsoever, and isn't it all splendid? (Oops.) Meanwhile, Butler-Wall, a former Green Party co-chair and a national force in the anti-commercialism movement, has run one of the most effective grass roots campaigns in memory. The fourth catalyst for change, Irene Stewart, is running for an open seat against Betty Hoagland, the sort of bland along-for-the-ride person that has plagued the board for years.

Taken as a whole, this group could change Seattle's schools immeasurably--and for the better. It's the best opportunity for a local election to actually improve something in a long, long time. Vote early and often: Sally Soriano (Dist. 1), Darlene Flynn (Dist. 2), Brita Butler-Wall (Dist. 3), and Irene Stewart (Dist. 6).

Initiative Measure 841: This is an effort by big business to repeal the state's ergonomics regulations. They failed in Olympia, so they're trying what the construction industry successfully managed to do with unemployment compensation last year: put a confusing measure on the ballot in hopes of fooling the public into passing an outrageous special interest measure. Why, it makes my back sore just thinking about it. No.

House Joint Resolution 4206: Don't let Pam Roach's name on this scare you. For once, the measure she's backed isn't abhorrent. This is basic housekeeping--closing a loophole in the law so that if an incumbent is voted out but dies before the new person is scheduled to take office, that new person--not an appointee or the winner of a special election--gets the seat. Basic, and fair. Yes.

Metropolitan King Co. Charter Amendment No. 1: Would permit the county council to, at its leisure, change King County's budget cycle from every year to every two years. Given how bad governments at all levels have been lately about predicting expenses and especially revenues, it's hard to fathom why they'd want to do this now--or why they're presenting the idea in this backhanded way rather than simply submitting such an important change directly to voters. No.

City of Seattle Proposition No. 1: A Fire Dept. levy, going largely to update some of Seattle's ancient firehouses. Say, isn't using the government to fight fires--for free!--vaguely communistic? Yes.

City of Seattle Charter Amendment No. 5: There are a number of good reasons to support changing Seattle's city councilpersons from being elected citywide to having each elected by district. It would give each councilperson an identifiable constituency, and constituents an identifiable representative. It would probably end the council's system of giving each member their own little committee fiefdom. It would make campaigns possibly less expensive and candidates definitely able to doorbell an entire district (as Bob Ferguson just did in winning a county council seat). It would ensure representation from poorer and more non-white parts of the city. (Or have you noticed that the city pays very little attention to what happens much south of Madison St.?)

Alas, there are also good reasons to oppose it, and they're rooted in how politics actually works, not how it ought to work. Neighborhood reps are easier to pick off and to play against each other; ward politics are a given. It would expand executive power; mayor Greg Nickels pushed for exclusion of the at-large seats originally included in this proposal specifically because he wanted to be able to, in clashes with council, claim himself as the only person representing the entire city--and he wants to stack the process by which the district boundaries are gerrymandered, er, drawn. District candidates are likely to mostly raise grassroots money in their own districts, but big money donors are just as likely as now to want to curry support among all council members by pouring money into their campaigns--meaning that overall, in each district, the percentage of donors that are self-interested corporations will be even higher than it is today. And instead of a disinterested incumbent being a roadblock to your complaints or requests on one issue (police, parks, utilities, whatever), one problem rep could be unhelpful on all your city-related needs, and other reps would defer to him or her.

All in all, without the presence of at least two or three at-large positions, this measure is likely to make city government even less, not more, representative for ordinary people. A better reform: some sort of proportional representation system, where people can cast votes for more than one legislator. That would help. Despite its good intentions, sadly, this won't. No.