tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post4698094754095196921..comments2023-10-26T01:59:40.483-07:00Comments on The Dividist Papers: And now for something completely local - 16 Candidatesmwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-34228576457855349342011-09-10T11:09:52.196-07:002011-09-10T11:09:52.196-07:00I'd say it's not so bad for San Francisco ...I'd say it's not so bad for San Francisco voters to have choices - better than 2-choice system.<br /><br />As to Oakland in 2010, Jean Quan would have defeated Don Perata one-on-one last November. We know that because more voters ranked her ahead of Perata than the other way around, even as she won the most votes by an Oakland mayoral candidate in almost 2 decades. <br /><br />That race shows why we should have runoffs or instant runoff voting in races with candidates - to find out which of the top candidates does best when matched against the other top candidate.<br /><br />As to Damon Eris' questions:<br /><br />* This is not San Francisco's first RCV elections. It has held them every November since 2004. It's the first open seat mayoral election with RCV. For more on Bay Area election history with RCV.<br />http://www.fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-in-bay-area-elections<br /><br />* Top two doesn't apply in San Francisco. If it did, this field of candidates would have been reduced last June to two candidates in a low turnout election, with the general election only with 2 choices.Rob Richienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-88381757169684353582011-09-08T12:48:13.429-07:002011-09-08T12:48:13.429-07:00Hey mw, thanks for the post, I didn't realize ...Hey mw, thanks for the post, I didn't realize this year would be SF's first election with ranked choice. Do you have any idea how it is will work in conjunction with top two, or does top two not apply to elections other than for state legislature, US Congress and statewide office?d.erishttp://politeaparty.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-75657678068528171212011-08-29T08:20:07.211-07:002011-08-29T08:20:07.211-07:00Tully,
An excellent investment strategy. Certainly...Tully,<br />An excellent investment strategy. Certainly a better return than anything I have been to get of the stock market. Unfortunately, you missed your opportunity this cycle, as I believe the deadline to file for this election cycle has passed. Sorry I did not provide you with earlier notification.<br /><br />It'll be interesting to see how many of our mayoral wannabes run afoul of campaign contribution and ethics rules. It is already starting to look like a Lawyers Full Employment Act with the accusations and court challenges. That's good. We have a lot of lawyers here.They need something to do.mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-34267312690946420742011-08-29T06:37:43.976-07:002011-08-29T06:37:43.976-07:00It's not that easy. But it isn't very hard...<i>It's not that easy. But it isn't very hard either. Raise $25,000 and you get $50,000. Scare up $100,000 and you get a 4 to 1 match for $400,000. No wonder there are 16 candidates for mayor. It's political happy hour.</i><br /><br />Holy Guacamole, Batman! That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Political happy hour, indeed.<br /><br />I think I should rent a cheap studio in SF (or as cheap as one can manage) run for mayor, raise 100K, take the 400K "matching" funds, use the money to establish a nice campaign HQ somewhere up in the hills, borrow some more money from myself, lose the election, then give myself the campaign HQ (which should be located near some convenient fishing stream ... ) to pay off the debt.<br /><br />Win/win. For me.Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03842067230152580405noreply@blogger.com