"If you want my vote, walk the talk and stop contributing to the problem."

Decisions, decisions

Make it easy on yourself: Ask the candidates hard questions

Editor, The Times:

As Election Day draws near, we find our mailboxes stuffed with glossy campaign literature and our streets lined with a colorful collage of illegally staked campaign signs.

The campaign fliers are too polished and perfectly framed to take seriously, and campaign signs plopped in the middle of some parking strip tell us nothing (other than the fact that we know the name of the person to blame for littering our public right of way).

It is difficult but not impossible for Seattle voters to see through the hype during campaign season. Don't choose the candidate with the quickest response or smartest-sounding sound bite on the campaign trail (like the candidate with a clever reason for wiggling out of a DUI while driving without a license and insurance card).

The important decisions before our City Council are complicated. Contract negotiations, public safety, major capital investments, transportation, parks and education, and affordable housing are but a few of the long list of subjects our elected officials become "experts" on in office.

We need smart leaders with substance who will think and take responsibility for their actions and for making important decisions on City Council.

— Patricia Stambor, Seattle

Redmond leads to roads

While it is true the Redmond City Council has not taken a formal position on Proposition 1 ["Proposition 1: Free-for-all over roads, transit," Politics, Oct. 21], six of seven Redmond City council members as individuals do support Proposition 1; some have formally endorsed the measure and contributed to the "yes" campaign. The council members supporting RTID/ST2 are Richard Cole, John Marchione, Jim Robinson, Pat Vache, Kim Allen and me.

For at least the past five years, the Redmond City Council has made the replacement of the Highway 520 (Evergreen Point) bridge our highest legislative priority. Without passage of the RTID/ST2 package, the project will fall $1.1 billion short of the needed funding and will be delayed indefinitely while the end of the life span of the bridge is quickly approaching.

As state Rep. Fred Jarrett, R-Mercer Island, has stated, "Roads & Transit is a balanced, comprehensive approach to solving our transportation problems and improving our quality of life."

As council members, we are committed to a regional approach to problem-solving. We applaud the regional efforts to bring this measure to the voters for approval and encourage a Yes vote.

— Nancy McCormick, Redmond

Continuance denied

"Yes on R-67 — restoring the balance" [endorsement, Oct. 23] overlooks an important aspect of that legislation — attorneys' fees.

Who sets the fee? Why, the attorney, of course.

The court must approve this, but only the most egregious fee statement will receive serious scrutiny.

Your insurance policy must now underwrite one more risk — the risk that overzealous counsel will pursue a case far beyond the point of reasonable settlement. Why? While the case is open, the meter keeps running.

— Craig McGee, Seattle

From Evergreen State to red-tape capital

We are a representative democracy. We elect our representatives to use their best judgment to make sound policies that meet our needs. If we are unsatisfied with their performance, we can and should vote them out of office. This is the foundation of our representative democracy.

Tim Eyman's Initiative 960 would undermine this foundation. By forcing the Legislature to vote on hundreds of fee increases every year and granting veto power to a small minority of legislators, I-960 would make government less efficient and more cumbersome.

By requiring endless, confusing and expensive advisory ballots, I-960 would create a bureaucratic mess.

Our current system may not be perfect, but I-960 will only make it worse. The Seattle League of Women Voters opposes I-960.

— Denise Smith, president

— Harriett Morton, action chair,

Seattle League of Women Voters

Honesty, the best politics

Thanks to the Washington Supreme Court for allowing political candidates to lie when seeking office ["Split court says candidates can lie," page one, Oct. 5]. It now makes the election process seamless: Lie to get in, lie during term, lie to get re-elected and when lies get too many, lie to stay in.

Not all politicians lie, but no political party is immune to this problem and it seems to be status quo for most government offices. Government reform is needed now and it should start with the basic of all truths: honesty!

Oh, by the way, are not state Supreme Court judges also elected to office?

— John McLeod, Bellevue

The truth hurdles

Any person running for district attorney or prosecutor positions should be required to take an oath that they have never lied in court, that they have never concealed evidence from the defense, that they have not tampered with evidence, that they have never intimidated witnesses, and that they have not "led" witnesses into testimony that was not their own.

All public officials should be required to take an oath that they never have lied to the citizens of the state, either publicly, through policy decisions, or in legal settings, and that they will not do so as long as they are on the public payroll.

All governmental agencies, the legal system in particular, should be required to establish ethical standards, train employees in ethics, and hold each employee accountable for lapses in ethical conduct.

— David Baertschy, Duvall

The making of the present mess

For weeks, I have been blasted with full-color, glossy election propaganda via snail mail.

If you, your candidate, referendum or initiative had anything to do with any of these pieces, shame on you. If you talk "green," you'd better walk "green." These biased and insulting pieces do not pass Go, they go directly to jail — my recycle bin.

Long ago, I made a pledge that I would read the pros and cons, information and positions of each piece of legislation and candidate via the one and only official Voters Pamphlet, which I do look forward to receiving in the mail (printed on recycled paper, thank you very much). I do not listen to radio ads or watch the insipid television commercials and rarely read articles or Web sites endorsing or rejecting that on which I am about to vote.

If I haven't yet been educated about the issues prior to the date on which I vote, shame on me.

I am embarrassed that I receive this propaganda; I am even more embarrassed for anyone who creates and sends this material to me, yet claims they are "green," explicitly or implicitly.

If you want my vote, walk the talk and stop contributing to the problem. We complain about the millions and millions of dollars our federal candidates spend campaigning, yet it seems that our own legislators (and/or "wannabes") live in glass houses.

On behalf of all the trees that were killed, water, air and land polluted because of your snail-mail lip service — thanks for nothing. And please, don't do it again.

— Karla Halbakken, Seattle