I didn't think it possible, but this take is even sillier, head-in-sand than the Mayor's.

An election wouldn't be complete without our self-appointed experts telling us what it all means.

It's the job of the public press, online or hard copy, to present their thoughts on elections. I think all can agree that what constitutes the "public" press has changed radically in the last few decades and where we will be in two more is anyone's guess. Readers can fortunately present their opinions in a relatively free forum such as crosscut's. Agree or disagree, this country would be much diminished without such an exchange of ideas. If certain readers, perhaps thinking themselves "concerned citizens" don't like what is presented, and have nothing to offer to the conversation except sarcasm and negativism, perhaps their voices might be better served elsewhere. Or perhaps they might want to write something original themselves for crosscut or another source instead of taking potshots all the time.

Your angst is my Editor's Pick, Swifty.

I think that in his whiney piece, Mr.Valdez simply doesn't understand the range of reasons why Seattle voters rejected proposition 1.

For many, such as myself, I'm tired of the increasing load of regressive fees and taxes that shifts more and more financial burden on less affluent people. We need to reform our tax system, but this will never happen if voters support regressive practices.

Another strong reason voters rejected Proposition 1 was because of what has aptly been called "trolley folly." Street railways are simply not an efficient, cost effective transit solution. Yes, we need transit, but electrified bus service on existing streets and roads is a much better way to go.

For that reason, we need to place emphasis on repairing roads and bridges. And we should also not forget that the automobile as a means of personal transportation is not going to disappear. Even if most vehicles become electric in the future, they will still need roads to run on.

I think that in rejecting Propostion 1, Seattle voters made a very thoughtful and wise decision. Let's give them credit!

Ohio Governor John Kasich issued a statement late Tuesday night, which read in part, "Though I would have preferred a different outcome tonight, the people of Ohio have spoken and I respect their decision.

This is from a Cincinnati TV station, at http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Ohio-Voters-Overwhelmingly-Reject-Issue-Two/2ymromy-CE-vw-CBVV-_iQ.cspx

The subject was the vote by Ohio voters rejected a severe restriction on public employees collective bargaining. The margin was 60-40, same as TBD Prop. 1, same as August's Tunnel Referendum. Too bad the City Council can't say, "The people of Seattle have spoken, and we respect their decision."

Having never seen Roger even once on the campaign trail, I'm not surprised he got this wrong.

"Their message was simple to deliver: why pay more to drive?"

That was never the message of the Streets and Sidewalks for Seattle Campaign. If that had been our message, our NO campaign would have failed. We would not have received the endorsement of the 46th District Democrats, the League of Women Voters, or the Municipal League.

Our message was that, in times of economic difficulty, the government must respect voters by putting forth a specific, well-regulated spending plan focused on the "need to haves." The Families and Ed Levy did this and passed 60-40. Prop one did none of this and failed 40-60.

I spoke personally to hundreds of Seattle voters. Nearly all of them favor transportation spending -- enough of them to win a vote at the polls. The 'yes' campaign was doomed the moment McGinn and his crew put $18M for streetcars, hundreds of thousands for bicycle parking spots, and no money for even simple bridge repairs in the measure and topped it all with a loose spending structure that allowed them, as McGinn buddy Councilmember Mike O'Brien pointed out in comments made as they prepared to place this on the ballot, allowed the city to do "whatever we want with the money."

We'll not make those same mistakes when reconstructing this measure over the coming year and I'm hopeful we can get a transit, pedestrian, roads, and bridges measure focused on our city's "need to haves" passed in November 2012.

David Miller
Sidewalks and Streets for Seattle Campaign

I would have voted 'yes' on levy to fix our current transportation infrastructure--roads and bridges. We have left this much too long. Unfortunately, this is not the first time city politicians have advanced a 'fix the roads' levy that turned into something else.

Prettying the levy up with a little something for everyone and, by the way, if we (city government) decide to move the money round, don't worry, just didn't work.

I hope to see a practical levy in the future--one that does not provide politicians with the ability to cut any ribbons. I know cars, trucks, and driving in general are not politically correct, but I don't want any city bridge to be closed because we neglected to fix it.

Speaking for myself and others I know, we specifically rejected THIS proposition, not transportation spending in general. And I object to Valdez trying to ascribe other motives to people who simply disagree with him.

This proposition was a mess. "Give us $60 and trust us to do the right thing with it" is not the kind of leadership or vision we should expect.

Once again, people on the losing side of an election tries to negatively portray the opposition as either too dumb, too myopic or too self-centered to see the brilliance of their own point of view. Frankly, it's insulting.