The election results were certified after a close race between the two candidates. Generally, character or motive of the opposition candidate was not called into question by either group’s followers (other than one or two heated letters to the newspaper). Instead, the campaign stuck to the issues.

Campaign financing was not a problem. Neither candidate appeared to have wealthy sponsors.

The winner garnered 297 votes against his opponent’s 262. A difference of only thirty-five votes separated the candidates for mayor in our small Washington state town.

The current mayor, not standing for reelection, had endorsed the candidate who eventually won, as had most of the city council. Were those endorsements a factor in a closer race? We are told that voters today are disillusioned with anyone currently in political office.

Or perhaps it was the rabbit issue, pitting those for a solution (mostly humane suggestions, except one mentioning a falcon) versus those who wanted the increasing rabbit population to remain unmolested.

Or perhaps the election divided those who wanted a funicular or other mechanical means for moving tourists from the harbor to the town against those who favored keeping the status quo.

At any rate, the real test begins, now that the spirited but largely civil race is over. Can meaningful dialog remain between the elected and those who lost? Or will the work of the city now bog down in dysfunction, like that of government in the other Washington?

If the city government continues to work, the other Washington should study our example.