We have 22 candidates in the race for District 10 supervisor. Obviously, only one can win. We've had some very strong endorsements come out recently, plus some rather tepid ones, from across the city. It's a reality that there are only a few candidates who have a shot at actually winning the seat, and many more who don't.
Obviously, each candidate is going to put themselves, and tell supporters to put them, in the #1 position, but would it be too much to ask of every candidate to indicate whom THEY would endorse to go in the #2 and #3 position on the ranked-choice ballot? I don't think that this would detract from anyone's candidacy in the least, but it would give their supporters an idea whom their favorite would choose themselves.
If some candidates are on the ballot to help bring out the vote of traditionally under-represented communities, then people from those communities may be voting in a local election for the first time, may not know that they can make three choices, may not know how the ranked-choice system works, and as such, may only vote for their favorite candidate who brought them to the polls in the first place, leaving the other two positions blank. If their candidate gets dropped in the rounds of the ranked-choice system, then that voter who voted for them won't actually get to have a voice after all if they haven't also put someone's name in for #2 and #3.
Candidates, please think about endorsing your fellow candidates for the #2 and #3 slots.
Chris this seems logical but people need to understand that sometimes you go to the polls and your candidates doesn't win but at least you particpated in the process. Many of the grassroots candidates including myself are saying vote one with a bullet. Do not engaged in this rank choice non-sense. Vote for the candidate that you feel will best represent you and the district and ride that wave. If you wipeout so what at least you were loyal to your fan base. Geoffrea Morris campaign is encouraging one vote. One vote is the process for presidents, governors, senators and so forth. Rank Choice vote is not for the people. Majority rule should be the process because a candidate can have the most votes in the first choice column and lose the race. I don't believe that to be fair and many of the underrepresented population or the senior population or the family centered population will probably not be on the web choosing their candidates. Mailers and word of mouth will influence this race. So the let the game begins.
ReplyDeleteGeoffrea, I see where you're coming from, but if the top vote-getter only gets 30% of the vote in column #1 on the first round, should that person be our supervisor if 70% of the district has voted against them? This is a real prospect in this election. Voters who find their candidate at the bottom of round 1 and eliminated from round 2 will be guaranteed to have no influence over the outcome of the election going forward if they have left their remaining two choices blank. However, if that bottom candidate has endorsed someone else should they be eliminated, then not only do the voters get a second chance to decide the outcome, but the candidate who was eliminated has significant sway over the outcome as well, and in a way, can be a king- or queen-maker in putting someone over the 50% mark.
ReplyDeleteChris, I am fine with a 30% candidate winning. I am not a proponent for rank choice voting. I frankly like a good old fashion December run-off. I find rank choice voting "Esoteric" (inside joke) or confusing for the common voter.I am encouraging voters to vote one and be done. Now if you really can not make up your mind. Then I believe this type of voter should pick their top three candidates but if you have made your mind up, vote one the hard way.
ReplyDeleteHaving a June primary district vote could be a option in the future. Legislation is suppose to change with the times and maybe this is something I need to think about once I become supervisor.
Thanks for doing this blog. I am enjoying reading your comments.