The history of the present King of District 8 is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the city of Madison. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid city.

Austin King first took over Madison's District 8 seat, which represents many University of Wisconsin students living downtown, in 2003 when he was just 21 years old. And when he declared in December that he would not seek re-election, he said he wanted to see his seat remain in the hands of students.

But what many District 8 residents don't know is that one day before he officially announced he would leave the post, Mr. King was already garnering signatures — according to an Isthmus report — for his own hand-picked replacement: Lauren Woods. While it is not unusual for a lame-duck public official to endorse the candidate he thinks will be his best replacement, Mr. King's actions single-handedly guaranteed an election devoid of depth in its range of candidates.

In the race for who will fill Mr. King's District 8 seat, voters will have to choose between two candidates so similar, they are practically the same person. The few students who actually go to the polls and those voting absentee will be charged with the task of nitpicking their way through the two candidates to make a choice.

It should go without saying that a lack of ideological diversity in any election is a problem. And furthermore, under what circumstances should elected officials get to choose their own successors?

Mr. King was so focused on choosing Ms. Woods as his replacement, he didn't even wait to see which other District 8 residents were willing to throw their hats into the ring. We can't help but wonder what kind of deal Mr. King and Ms. Woods brokered in order to form such a premature alliance.

And when voters go to the polls, it likely won't matter whether they choose Ms. Woods or her opponent, Eli Judge. They have nearly indistinguishable platforms, and both have respectable public-service experience. Both have vowed to make downtown safety a priority and have voiced opposition to the Alcohol Density Plan, which would limit the number of new bars in the downtown area.

And though there are few areas where Mr. Judge and Ms. Woods disagree, we suggest voters ultimately choose Mr. Judge when they tally their absentee forms or head to the polls in two weeks.

We think Mr. Judge's more grounded plan to immediately attack downtown crime would better serve the needs of District 8 residents. While we appreciate Ms. Woods' dedication to safety, we believe some of her plans ignore the fact that the city operates on a limited budget. Mr. Judge's downtown safety plans are more realistic and fiscally responsible. He has been pitching his approach to solve the problem of attacks downtown that involves more grassroots solutions, like bolstering volunteer efforts and promoting programs that help residents protect themselves from crime.

No matter how many minute differences we can find in the two candidates, this year's election for the District 8 seat will be known not for the bickering or attack ads, but for the indistinguishable platforms of Mr. Judge and Ms. Woods.

Perhaps if Mr. King had challenged residents in his district to win his endorsement, voters would have had a race that was really worth getting excited about. Instead, they will have to get out the magnifying glass just to figure out whom to choose.