Texpatriate on recommendations

It is no secret that we have been somewhat outward with our recommendations in this municipal election. The tab marked “2013 Election” shows all the recommendations made by both this board and the individual Editorial Board members.

Texpatriate made a conscious decision to write individual editorials for each municipal office, so as to discuss every race in depth. The astute will notice that many of these editorials follow the same template, a rough process of elimination that delineates the strengths and weaknesses of all the major candidates. Most interest groups that field endorsements simply offer up names. While the Houston Chronicle does ascribe their endorsements to a detailed editorial, the format follows a very different path. Very rarely does a Chronicle endorsement go into depth about a candidate other than the endorsee.

This board does things very differently for, what we humbly believe, is a unique reason. While many other organizations that endorse do so with the intention of convincing readers and members to support their picks, we try to stimulate critical reasoning about the election and encourage individuals to make their own decisions. Sometimes they align with our picks, but often times they do not.

Take, for example, this board’s (in)decision in the District D election. The four Editorial Board members endorsed four different candidates. Rather than continuing to fight and argue until we agreed upon one candidate (often for painfully watered down reasons), this board embraced our diversity-of-opinion and published divergent viewpoints on the election for the divergent opinions of our readers.

At-large position #2 is another great example of this concept. For, even though we unanimously endorsed one candidate, we did so for very particular reasons. This board is turned off by Councilmember Burks’ often confrontational style at City Council meetings, but many others could easily find them to be an asset. While we placed great importance on the Homeless feeding ordinance and Food truck reforms, many others might not find those issues especially important. By going out of our way to compare and contrast the two major candidates in the race, this board believes that we are able to offer invaluable information to people who would not necessarily agree with our editorial line.

No matter what pundits in the national press would have you believe, most individuals are not perfect ideologues of the left or the right. This is exemplified in non-partisan municipal elections, wherein candidates with ostensibly identical partisan affiliation still boast diverse political positions.

It would be the height of hubris and egotism to believe that the opinions of the this board, nuanced and unique as they are, perfectly represent those of a significant chunk of the populous. Accordingly, we have attempted our best to explain the individual attributes of many, if not most, of the major candidates.

The Texpatriate Editorial Board is comprised of Olivia Arena of Austin, George Bailey & Noah M. Horwitz of Boston and Andrew Scott Romo of New Orleans.

One thought on “Texpatriate on recommendations

  1. Pingback: Texpatriate | In re Cruz’s endorsements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s