Initial candidate ranking

So this initial candidate ranking may be the final candidate ranking, as ballots start arriving in mailboxes next week, and the only thing that may change people's already-formed opinions is Charley Dickey's reaction to the EVPC forum (no one will actually attend) or any "bombshells" dropped by the Trail-Gazette.  Otherwise, it is already clear who is placing ads (and what they will say), who is placing letters of support, who will go the "endorsement" route, and who is going to attack other opponents (no one, in order to preserve "civility", and thus guarantee remaining in the tier they currently occupy).

A really strange thing about predicting elections where the voters get to mark up to three choices is how they utilize that third vote.  From the last hospital board election, it was clear that certain people (I had no idea we had that many schizophrenics in the district) voted for Bruce Carmichael and Bert Bergland, and then turned around and awarded their third vote to Bill Pinkham.  This is the very definition of not understanding the voting process or the names on the ballot, as both Bruce and Bert were diametrically opposed to Bill, and in fact accused Bill of cheating by having the questions provided in advance at the lone candidate forum.

So it is pretty clear how the politburo would like this election to be (currently) Ward Nelson, Ken Zornes, and one other.  They had better choose that "one other" pretty quickly, otherwise they run the risk of the randomness of the third vote spreading out among 4 or 5 candidates, and leaving things potentially up to chance.  And if there is one thing the politburo despises, it is leaving anything up to chance.

So one position will likely change depending on how quickly they solidify, and who they solidify around.  If they were smart, they would hand-pick one of the qualified females, but it is a group of older men, so no guarantees.

Patrick Martchink's election last cycle suggests that there are enough young people in town (or youngsters at heart) to give another under-30 a chance.  Again, the problem for the younger candidates is that they tend to cancel each other out, because they are on opposite sites of certain hot-button issues (civility and VEP seem to be earning more attention than are likely merited, while no candidates disagree on broadband or the flood plain).

TIER 1 - 90% chance of getting on the board

Ward Nelson - His election to lose
Ken Zornes - Joined all the right clubs upon arrival, has been tapped on the shoulder by the power brokers

TIER 2 - 50% chance of getting on the board, depends no so much on how they campaign or how many doors they knock on, but on whether they are accepted into the fold by Bill and Jim

Marie Cenac - Safe female choice
Scott Webermeier - Can he rally the oldsters voting bloc, or has he created too many enemies from serving on too many boards?
Bob Holcomb - Will his church continue supporting this reformed sinner?

TIER 3 - 25% chance of getting on the board, unless they make national news by rescuing someone from an overturned car, their best chance is building a name for themselves for the next election

Dave Shirk - Surprisingly blah at the forum, trail improvement and broadband are not important/controversial enough issues to coalesce the over-50 vote.
Art Messal - The Dave alternative, rather than the Ward alternative, as he had hoped
Michelle Hiland - Will split vote with Carlie Bangs
Carlie Bangs - Will split vote with Michelle Hiland

TIER 4 - 10% change of getting on the board

Barbara MacAlpine - Just hasn't lived here long enough or influenced enough of the folks who instruct others how to complete their ballot