We caught this story in Our Colorado News about a new candidate for city council in Lakewood, and it confused the crap out of us. The story is written by a reporter, not the candidate herself, so you can probably understand our confusion. Here's how the story leads off:
Shakti announced she will be a candidate for Lakewood City Council in Ward 3 in November.
Shakti is running for the term-limited seat held by Sue King.
“On many issues I’m very impressed with the course the city is on, but we need to make sure to keep the city on course,” she said. “As a city council member it is also important to always be looking for ways to do things better.”
For the past two and a half years, Shakti has served on Advisory Commission for an Inclusive Community (ACIC). Currently she is the chair of the Sustainability Committee.
So, what the hell is a "Shakti?"
The reporter never actually explains what a "Shakti" might be, so we had to go to her website to learn that Shakti is a Lakewood woman who has only this word as her full legal name. Like Madonna. Or Elmo.
While the story is a bit confusing, it brings up some interesting questions for the November ballot. In a "nonpartisan" election, does having just one name give you an inherent advantage or disadvantage? If there is only one other candidate on the ballot, we would think it would be a disadvantage because an uninformed voter might draw unfair conclusions about the sanity of a person with just one name (we're not suggesting anything about Shakti, whom we know nothing about — but you could see how this could appear negatively to a voter).
On the other hand, if Shakti is able to raise decent money and get out in the community, she has a huge name recognition advantage.
What say you, Polsters? In a local city council race, is having one name an inherent benefit or problem?