Ballot Boredom
The number of candidates running unopposed is embarrassing. Of the 313 offices up for grabs in King County this year, candidates were running unopposed in 139 cases. The bulk of these unopposed seats were in the numerous "district" elections (including water districts, sewer districts, even cemetery districts - great stepping stones for political careers). Many candidates for important city offices were also unopposed, such as Seattle city Attorney Mark Sidran.

Spiffing up our ballot would be a simple operation. First, the habitually unopposed seats should be eliminated: the sewer commissioner could be appointed by the local mayor, or better yet, elected by the sewer employees.

Second, in the other more competitive races, we should be able to choose among parties, not just names. Currently, most mayoral and city council elections are nonpartisan. A listing of party affiliations would help voters form a rough idea of what each candidate stands for, and would increase the visibility of smaller parties, particularly new ones.

Finance Deform
Pro-corporate candidates can watch the campaign funds flow in, while truly pro-labor or pro-environment candidates are lucky to get help from their grandparents. This deformed state of affairs is partly caused by the courts, which have repeatedly found legislative limits on campaign spending to be in violation of freedom of speech. Another solution to campaign fund inequality, public financing of campaigns, was killed in Washington state last year by a small clause in Initiative 134, a Republican-backed campaign-finance reform measure.

In 1991, prior to Initiative 134, Freedom Socialist Party member Yolanda Alaniz received 20 percent of the vote against front-runner Sue Donaldson for a Seattle City Council seat. Although Alaniz lost, it was a tremendous showing for labor politics in Seattle. Part of Alaniz's success was her qualification for city matching funds, public money dispersed to candidates who raise a certain amount of campaign donations on their own. One year later, Initiative 134 forced Seattle to scrap its matching funds.

Carolyn Van Noy, executive director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, which oversees city elections, decries the initiative.

"I believe that because of 134 we're seeing fewer serious candidates that can challenge incumbents. In past city elections, candidates filed as early as January in order to start work on fundraising so they could get matching funds," Noy said. ""This year, most challengers waited until shortly before the summer filing deadline. The result is that the public is not as familiar with the challengers."

Impotence
A final cause of voter apathy is that local politicians are unable to solve the most pressing problems. Almost every city candidate sings a standard tough-on-crime litany (even seeming progressives like Seattle Councilwoman Margaret Pageler do so), but city governments are largely powerless to change the roots of crime - guns, economic instability, widespread homelessness and hopelessness.

These underlying problems can never be solved by cities, which are fearful of becoming welfare magnets. We need, at the national level, an expanded notion of gun control and welfare, including job training and placement, before local candidates can be free to seriously discuss issues besides crime.

Under 601, spending can only grow as fast as the population and inflation. Without some way of indexing the budget to the state's real economic growth - such as pegging it also to changes in real per capita income - the size of government will continue to drop in relation to the size of Washington's economy.

Rising income brings with it increased demands on government, because people insist on more amenities as they become wealthier, and also because a more complex economy requires more public investment.

Government also needs to be able to respond to the inevitable problems caused by growth. But because it's now virtually impossible to raise taxes, some other way of raising money will have to be found. Perhaps the religious, conservative followers of Sen. Linda Smith can pass around a second basket at Sunday collection time.

For example, the Commons announced recently that a 73-unit apartment complex is expected to open in January, with studios, and one- and two-bedroom units going for $500 to $1,200 a month. Is this really affordable housing?