The phrase "shotgun wedding" could really be applied to any general election--with few doubts as to which party has been getting screwed-- but for Nov. 6, the usual forced marriages of money and democracy or politicians and marks constituents have a more vivid pair joining them on the altar: mass transit and roads. Two great tastes that not only don't taste so great together, but generally despise each other. Yet in order for money for more Sound Transit to kick in during this year's Proposition One, voters must also approve a lot of money for new Seattle area roads. And vice versa. And there's no way for voters to "send a message," as with last spring's local Alaskan Way Viaduct plebiscite, by rejecting one or another or both sides, and giving the state legislature guidance with which to go back to the drawing board. That's exactly what the legislature planned: They're gaming that enough voters will hold their noses and vote for the half they hate as well as the half they support so that the whole thing will pass, when polls show both failing separately.

The Regional Transportation Investment District/Sound Transit Proposition One is only one of several unappetizing pairs on this year's ballot. Some--OK, most--of the city council choices don't look so hot either. What to do? As usual, we won't tell you what you should do. Heck, we barely know ourselves, and there's not always agreement among us. So take our recommendations (as with any state- eating meal) with salt and other spices. Do your own research, make up your own mind. And hold off just for now on the new crock pot for the happy couple.

THE ELECTED OFFICES

Seattle City Council, Position One: Why is Jean Godden, despite stiff competition, the worst member of our city council? Because she came in four years ago utterly clueless about civic affairs, riding her name recognition from decades as a local gossip columnist, treating the seat like her gold watch for having sucked up for so long to the right people at the right parties. And in four years she hasn't grown on the job. She's still clueless, still sucking up to the rich and powerful, and doing nothing else. As well as being a reliably wrong vote, she's a barely warm seat in a council notorious for its lack of leadership. She is a waste of a seat.

We'd endorse her opponent regardless. But happily, her challenger, Joe Szwaja, is the best of the batch running for city council this year, a smart, principled, and experienced activist running explicitly against corporate and developer business-as-usual downtown. Vote early and often. Joe Szwaja.

Seattle City Council, Position Three: Oy. Bruce Harrell is a disaster, a developer-backed lawyer who--"when I starred for the Huskies in the Rose Bowl..."--trots out more--"back when my grandfather settled in Seattle..."--cliches per second than any other--"growing up in a working class Seattle household..." politician I've ever met. Ever. (All guaranteed actual quotes. Frequent quotes).

His opponent, Venus Velazquez, is a conundrum: a social services consultant that some progressive activists rave about and others distrust. She's been a key player in winning some good fights (Casa Latina, Daybreak Star); she's also accepted a lot of the same developer money as Harrell, though her rhetoric is much more populist.

She's also taken flack from some white people for her remarks at a Hate Free Zone forum in which Velazquez urged the largely non-white crowd to "vote for people who look like you." It was a stupid remark-- especially since Harrell is also non-white--but in this case she's gotten a bum rap. Velazquez was only reflecting the grim reality of Seattle politics, in which David Della was elected because he was Asian Pacific Islander and Richard McIver would long ago have been retired were he not African-American. Why? Because non-whites perceive, accurately, that in our at-large system the white council majority could not care less about minority interests. Velazquez would be the city's first Latina councilmember, and she was speaking, however clumsily, to that. As she has a right to.

More concerning is that every council member in our liberal city has a decent social service background; it's not necessarily a predictor of what they'll do on the council. Velazquez is ambitious and, by her own admission, likes being an inside player. She's a risk. But Harrell would be worse. With reservations, Venus Velazquez.

Seattle City Council, Position Five: Tom Rasmussen is unopposed. Skip it.

Seattle City Council, Position Seven: Oy again. David Della has been a real disappointment in his council term; Godden-like in his lack of leadership, particularly when multiple parks controversies erupted on his watch (as chair of the parks committee) last year and he did nothing. But his opponent is Tim Burgess, a slick ex-cop who, among other dubious alliances, spent years advising the ultra-reactionary conservative Christian group Concerned Women of America. He doesn't deserve re-election, but the alternative is far worse. With reservations, David Della.

Seattle City Council, Position Nine: Sally Clark is another councilperson who wouldn't be missed, but she is essentially unoppposed. Her nominal opponent, Judy Fenton, ran because she wants the nude male sculpture at Olympic Sculpture Park covered up to protect our children. I can't make this shit up. I'm tempted to endorse Fenton for sheer entertainment value. I think I'll go lie down instead. Skip it.

Seattle School District One, Director One: Sally Soriano is the principled activist who fought the WTO and helped bring accountability to the school board. Peter Maier is the downtown candidate who wants that accountability gone. No contest. Sally Soriano.

Seattle School District One, Director Two: Darlene Flynn is the other incumbent reform board member being targeted, this time by Sherry Carr. Carr is better than Maier, but she'd still have all the wrong allies--and Flynn, like Soriano, has generally done a good job. Darlene Flynn.

Seattle School District One, Director Three: Ecch. Harium Martin-Morris could be fine, but more likely will be part of the problem. Somehow his opponent is David Blomstrom, a long-time schools gadfly who, on the bright side, is a former teacher and a dedicated progressive. Alas, he's also far too often unhinged, abusive, or both in attacking his many perceived enemies, and is completely unfit for public office. Skip it.

Seattle School District One, Director Six: In the primary we suggested skipping this one, with educrat Steve Sundquist (a distant second to Harrell as a cliche-monger, but not for lack of effort) and an uninspiring array of challengers. But then we had several folks speak up for the woman who made it to the general against Sundquist, Maria Ramirez, and on balance there's no question she'd be better than him. So let's go with your suggestion. Maria Ramirez.

King County Council: Larry Gossett and Larry Phillips are, as usual, unopposed; Dow Constantine has a token Republican opponent. In the 'burbs, the lying, drunk, abusive incumbent Jane Hague has a party-hopping permacandidate, Richard Pope, as her challenger. Aren't you glad we live in a democracy where we have choices like these?

Port of Seattle, Position Two: Incumbent Bob Edwards does not deserve re-election. He has for too many years been a reliable ally of Pat Davis and the corrupt cronyism that makes the Port our worst public agency--by far. Yet Port Observer publisher Christopher Cain, who we respect, has endorsed Edwards. He's concerned about challenger Gael Tarleton's past decade-plus employment with, and ongoing financial stake in, SAIC, a company that does business with ports worldwide.

With respect, I'm not convinced. Cain argues that Edwards is now harmless because he and Davis are now a two-person minority. Even if you buy the idea that business-backed John Creighton is a reform- aligned commissioner (which I don't), how would Tarleton be worse? Instead, Tarleton has run an explicit "reform" campaign, and despite the danger signals, she's still got more of a shot at behaving ethically (i.e., more than zero) than Edwards has ever shown. And there's something to be said for throwing out public officials who violate the public trust, regardless of their replacement. Keep an eye on her, but vote Gael Tarleton.

Port of Seattle, Position Five: Alec Fisken is the bedrock of the two-person reform wing of the Port Commission. That's why he's being targeted by the business community in the person of deep- pocketed Republican Bill Bryant. Fisken's been good; Bryant is bad news. An easy choice. Alec Fisken.

King County Prosecuting Attorney: Both Democrat Bill Sherman and Republican Dan Satterberg (who stepped in when Norm Maleng died last Spring) are by all accounts competent attorneys and good guys. But Sherman has a history of fighting all the right fights (including years prosecuting domestic violence crimes) and ran a strong environment-oriented campaign when he ran for state legislature in the crowded 43rd District race last year; Satterberg was part of the partisan Republican effort to throw out the votes that gave the 2004 governor's race to Gregoire. Bill Sherman.

King County Assessor: Scott Noble is the long-time incumbent; Jim Nobles, doubtless hoping people will confuse their names, is the Republican challenger. Scott has by all accounts done a fine job. Scott Noble.

THE BALLOT MEASURES

Seattle Charter Amendment 17: A new preamble. Why do we have to waste our time with this shit? Yes.

Seattle Charter Amendment 18: Moves the mayor's annual State- of-the-City message from June to February. See above.

King County Initiative 25: Would place on next year's ballot a partisan attempt by local Republicans to elect the county's elections director (rather than hiring a qualified professional). A cockeyed process, but let's not wait 'til next year to kill this bad idea. No.

King County Proposition One: Renews Medic One's tax levy. Yes.

Sound Transit/RTID Proposition One: The shotgun wedding of two different agencies' propositions in one ballot measure. There is no real disagreement among the ETS! crew that the piece from Sound Transit (whatever ST's flaws as an agency) is needed, and the roads piece is a disaster. Now that we have a light rail system in progress, we need it to be a regional system as much as possible. But the roads part is expensive, encourages more car traffic (and global warming), and overfunds boondoggles like I-405 expansion while underfunding real safety concerns like replacing the SR 520 bridge.

The question is: what to do with them together? This measure, unfortunately, is all about politics rather than principle, and the political reality is that if this goes down, it is the roads rather than the transit piece that will have the upper hand in the legislature. Suburban legislators want roads--hence the I-405 fixation--and nearly 70 percent of King County's population (plus most of Snohomish and Pierce) is in the suburbs, with legislative districts apportioned accordingly. So if this goes down, the effect will be to delay expansion of light rail for years, while the roads lobby will be back on the ballot pronto. As is, this measure is more of a commitment to transit than our region has ever made in its 40 years of missteps on the issue. Not perfect at all, but the perfect, in this case, is the enemy of the good. Some other ETS!ers, for environmental reasons, will vote no. I'm voting yes. You decide.

State Initiative 960: Tim Eyman's latest would further amend and tighten his previous disastrous lid on tax increases, requiring a nearly impossible two-thirds legislative or voter approval on tax hikes, legislative approval of all fee raises, and "advisory" public votes on any tax increases enacted legislatively. It is exactly what it appears to be: a prescription for grinding government to a halt. No.

Referendum 67: It's hard to imagine a more perfect example of how large corporate interests can abuse the initiative process. The state legislature enacted a radical bill last year, over insurance company objections, that mandated health insurance companies to, um, you know, pay legitimate claims rather than fleecing their sick customers. Presto! Eight million dollars of TV ads later, we have R. 67, a cynical attempt to preserve those insurance companies' obscene profits at the expense of their contractual obligations. Approved means you want the legislature's original bill to become law. Sadly, abolishing the insurance companies altogether isn't on the ballot. Yet.

Senate Joint Resolution 8206: A constitutional amendment to set up, essentially, a new permanent reserve fund. The problem is that it requires an Eyman-style supermajority to access the funds when needed. Rejected.

Senate Joint Resolution 8212: A constitutional amendment that reinstates a private inmate work program eliminated by a state Supreme Court ruling. The program is privatized (naturally), and the alternative is presented as no work being available for inmates at all. The "no" camp screams about unfair competition for non- imprisoned workers; the "yes" camp says this is the only way that crime victims can get restitution. Neither seems to give a rat's ass about the future lives of the inmates themselves. Approved, I guess, but this whole thing is just really fucked up.

House Joint Resolution 4204: Another constitutional amendment, that would eliminate supermajorities for school tax levies. Approved.

House Joint Resolution 4215: A constitutional amendment that would enable university trust funds to be invested in the stock market. As if finding the money for higher ed wasn't already a losing gamble. Rejected.