It just gets nastierBy Tim Redmond
On the last day before the election, Warren Hinckle managed to get a final blast in, distributing (he told me) 40,000 coies of the Argonaut, his occasionally published journal that seems to be published largely when there are political ads available to fund it. Most of the distribution's going on the west side of town, and the cover features a rather nasty illustration of Janet Reilly, in a low-cut, tight dress, drinking a glass of champagne in her Sea Cliff mansion.
The picture represents exactly the reputation the Fiona Ma campaign is trying to pin on Reilly (rich woman married to a real-estate investor, lives in a nice house, and is really just a stalking horse for her husband, who is clearly calling the shots). It's pretty much all Ma has to fight with, since Ma is a terrible vote on the Board of Supervisors, has been a bumbling candidate who was badly embarassed in one debate and skipped the next, and has no real political platform or vision.
But it's already creating waves. "Women all over the city should be outraged at the way these special interests are making the most sexist claims about Reilly," Alix Rosenthal, president of the San Francisco chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus, told me. "I hope there's some sort of backlash against Fiona Ma for this; she ought to be denoucing these tactics and standing up for women't rights."
The Argonaut is normally funded with political ads (which is what it is; we take political ads, too). This time around, there's also a full-page ad from Cityapartments, the subsidiary of Skyline Realty, which is one of the more notorious landlords in town. Does Skyline really think it's going to rent out apartments by advertising in this once-only political journal -- or is that a favor to Ma, who is the fave of the landlord lobby?
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (2)
Dear Editor,
At LocalParty.Org, we think it is not really a surprise that so few people turned out to vote. Two aspects undermine voter vigilance. The first is apathy; voters are tired of voting. Do we really have to go to the voting booth — again — for just these few minor issues? Voters are called upon to do their civil duty so often, to the point that many decide it is not worth showing up this time.
The second aspect that undermines voter vigilance is the limited choice. We all like choice; it entices us to come out and vote. Would you really go to that same restaurant again and again if all they serve is macaroni and spaghetti? In many democracies around the world, the restaurants have a full menu, not just a choice of two, and voter turn-out is a lot higher. When people vote for representatives, and not for winners, they find as part of the outcome a Greek salad, a hamburger, pasta, fish, string beans, rice, and potatoes. Only then do the dishes get involved in a dance to find the most desired nutritious meal. Unfortunately, the only outcome here is either macaroni or spaghetti. Here, the most vigorous fights are fought over having red onions or white onions in the pasta.
With just 35% of Californians deciding the vote, these votes don't translate into a refined outcome, because everybody gets what the majority (of voters) decided. The rule to immediately apply majority choice to the outcome means that even the most interesting issues are decided with an average 60% of the cast votes, which means that on average only 21% of the eligible voter population made the decisions for all of us this time around. It is easy to think that if we are stuck with macaroni on some issues, and stuck with spaghetti on the other issues we don't need to show up for our civic duty. It does not have to be this way, because democracies differ and some are quite nutritious. Our democracy can be improved so we like it again. Ketch-up, anyone?
Fredrick Schermer
http://Localparty.Org
Posted by Fredrick Schermer - LocalParty.Org | June 7, 2006 08:02 PM
Another Low in Voter Turn Out 6/6/06
At LocalParty.Org, we think it is not really a surprise that so few people turned out to vote. Two aspects undermine voter vigilance. The first is apathy; voters are tired of voting. Do we really have to go to the voting booth — again — for just these few minor issues? Voters are called upon to do their civil duty so often, to the point that many decide it is not worth showing up this time.
The second aspect that undermines voter vigilance is the limited choice. We all like choice; it entices us to come out and vote. Would you really go to that same restaurant again and again if all they serve is macaroni and spaghetti? In many democracies around the world, the restaurants have a full menu, not just a choice of two, and voter turn-out is a lot higher. When people vote for representatives, and not for winners, they find as part of the outcome a Greek salad, a hamburger, pasta, fish, string beans, rice, and potatoes. Only then do the dishes get involved in a dance to find the most desired nutritious meal. Unfortunately, the only outcome here is either macaroni or spaghetti. Here, the most vigorous fights are fought over having red onions or white onions in the pasta.
With just 35% of Californians deciding the vote, these votes don't translate into a refined outcome, because everybody gets what the majority (of voters) decided. The rule to immediately apply majority choice to the outcome means that even the most interesting issues are decided with an average 60% of the cast votes, which means that on average only 21% of the eligible voter population made the decisions for all of us this time around. It is easy to think that if we are stuck with macaroni on some issues, and stuck with spaghetti on the other issues we don't need to show up for our civic duty. It does not have to be this way, because democracies differ and some are quite nutritious. Our democracy can be improved so we like it again. Ketch-up, anyone?
Fredrick Schermer
http://Localparty.Org
Posted by Fredrick Schermer - LocalParty.Org | June 7, 2006 08:03 PM