What's everyone's take on the idea of running for office, when you know you will likely only get <1% of the vote?
I've been considering running for a city-wide position, I do not claim to have the political experience to realistically be a contender, but I am active in local politics and have been a political observer here for various publications for four years, and am often upset at the way city officials handle things.
But the question remains, is it just childish to offer yourself as a candidate? Realistically, I would expect to maybe get 1,000 votes. But it would probably attract some media attention, and perhaps get a few people thinking about other issues.
When the 2006 election year rolls around, I'll have been out of college for six months, and have been in living in DC for four years (well, with a brief stint in Virginia, but that does not disqualify me as far as election law goes) I'm not going to pretend that I know as much about the area, or have as much political experience as others running for city council positions or mayor.
I would not be running as a joke, I would have an intelligent platform and ideas that are well thought out and based on the concerns of residents. For those from around DC, it would not be as if Borf were running.
So I suppose the question comes down to, if there is not a candidate who offers what you think is a sensible plan to help citizens, should you offer an alternative? Or do you just hold your nose and vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination? At least by offering a novel alternative, perhaps people will think about other ideas, and perhaps it will get the old guard to think of some new solutions.
I'm not going to be foolish and believe that most people would ever take me seriously, but even if just a few people did, it might be worth it. Where candidates win with no opposition, it just seems to make sense to offer something different.
Thoughts?