Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 6 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
rim** . fHIfJM
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003
Our View
Winners, losers
As we waited for the election returns Tuesday
evening, we got to thinking about the value of
elections in a democracy. It occurred to us that the election of 2003 in Rappahannock County illustrated both what's really good about our elections here and what's really bad about them.
One of the really good things was the spirited and competitive race for county sheriff. Two well-qualified ; candidates competed for the office, offering the voters a * real choice. The lively contest between incumbent Z Sheriff Larry Sherertz and challenger Steve Butler energized many citizens of the county to become involved on one side or the other. This triggered a real - debate on important questions ranging from the qualifications and experience of the two men to the cost of * running the sheriffs department and the quality of law enforcement in the county.
That's exactly what elections are supposed to accomplish]) provide a choice, inform the public, energize the voters and revitalize the body politic. We owe a debt of thanks both to Mr. Butler and to Mr. Sherertz for engaging in this demanding and difficult process, and doing it with dignity.
That's the good news.
The bad news is that in three of the five voting districts of Rappahannock County, no such thing happened in the races for the county Board of Supervisors, which is the key decision-making body for the county. Three incumbent supervisors]) Charles K. "Pete" Estes of Piedmont, Robert Anderson of Stonewall-Hawthome and Roger Welch of Wakefield district, got a free ride to re-election without any opponent.
That's more shame-on-us than shame-on-them. Nobody stepped up to the plate in those districts to give us a real election. Elections that offer no choice are not really elections]) they are coronations.
Still, even elections without challengers produce winners and losers. In no-contest elections, the incumbents are the winners and the voters are the losers. In these situations, there is no debate on issues, there is no energizing of voters and there is no need for incumbents to even explain what they think. When this happens year after year, non-competitive elections breed in incumbents a sense of entitlement to the office they hold, which is unhealthy in a democracy.
Thankfully, voters in the other two districts were offered choices for supervisor. Though incumbents Bryant Lee of Hampton district and Ron Frazier of Jackson district were returned to office, the presence of challengers made them listen more carefully to their constituents and compelled them to publicly explain their views in candidate forums and other meetings.
We congratulate all the winners and we salute all the "losers," who weren’t really losers at all. They performed a public service in giving us choices and making I us think about the kind of leadership we want and the ■ issues we care about. That s the great thing about elec- tions. We hope that next time we vote in 2007, there will be challengers and choices and a chance for democracy to work in every race for every office in the county.
91.9%