Okay, we've got numbersBy Tim Redmond
And a couple of surprises.
With just the absentee ballots in -- traditionally the most conservative votes -- Prop. A is cruising to victory. No surprise there -- that one was going to win easy.
Prop. B, which would take out of the City Charter the mandate that the supervisors hire no more than two staffers -- is actually ahead in the absentees. That's a big surprise -- I suspected that the more conservative voters would buy the argument that the supes will just run wild and hire armies of staffers.
But there's a message here -- people LIKE district elections, and for the most part (while the reputation of legislative bodies in general ain't that great) people seem to LIKE the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. They seem to realize that the board members have a huge amount of work to do, and need more help to properly serve voth the city and their own districts.
Prop. C, allowing the city to sell naming rights to Candlestick, is winning and will will handily.
Prop. D -- the controversial measure to allow electronic billboards in Mid-Market -- is losing, narrowly -- but as the more progressive votes come in, that will widen and Prop. D will go down.
Oh -- City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Treasurer Jose Cisneros are getting re-elected.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (6)
How is there a message here about district elections? I didn't even bother to vote because everyone was running unopposed and I could give a shit about the dumb-ass ballot measures. What do you think the turnout was - 14%?
Me thinks Tim is frightened over the rumors that an attempt is going to be on the ballot in 2011 to end district elections. He should be. He should be scared shitless.
Posted by Lucretia the Troll | November 3, 2009 09:38 PM
Tim -
You write regarding Prop B, "there's a message here -- people LIKE district elections, and for the most part (while the reputation of legislative bodies in general ain't that great) people seem to LIKE the San Francisco Board of Supervisors." That's quite a stretch since there's nothing whatsoever in that initiative about district elections.
As someone who supported Prop B, my reasoning never even got to that point, nor did I consider how much I love the BOS. I'm sure that I'm not alone. Instead, it just seemed common sense that city officials should make their own budget decisions and, if they need more staff and want to face the voters who might believe they are overdoing it every once in a while, well then, fine. Sounds like those who are trying to do their jobs should not have some rigid rule preventing them from having the resources.
So I would ask that if you are going to extrapolate some broad conclusion to support your own views of the BOS and district elections, I ask that you not simply state it ... prove it.
(District elections are fine as a concept because they provide neighborhood representation. But the best model is a combination of local-focused district officials and a minority of at-large districts so that someone other than a single mayor can take the whole view of the city, balance the parochialism that is the occasional downside of district-only legislative bodies.)
Best to you.
Posted by Donnie Fowler | November 3, 2009 09:47 PM
Donnie: Thanks for your comment. But I still think the district elex point is relevant.
The old Board of Supes, under at-large elections, was generally about as popular as the CA state Legislature is right now. There's no way the voters would have approved a measure to make the at-large supes full time, and there's no way they would have approved this with the at-large supes, who were at best (as Willie Brown described them) the mayor's "mistresses.")
At-large supes need to raise big chunks of money, and thus are in hock to campaign donors and the mayor. District supes seem a lot closer to the folks who elect them -- less imperious, more accountable, more likely to be around in the neighbohrood. And that's given the board as a whole more credibility at a time when people don't seem to want to trust government.
It may be a stretch, of course (I've never been accused of being too moderate in my thinking) but it's not too far off.
Posted by tim redmond | November 3, 2009 09:51 PM
Oh, and as for the hybrid model: I don't think the current distict supes could ever be accused of not thinking about citywide (or even nationwide) issues. The problem with any at-large seats in a city as big as SF is simple:
Money.
If you have to run citywide, you need name recognition (which is why, for years the supes were something like an inherited monarchy with people named Hallinan and Alioto and Nelder and Shelley playing off their family fame) or upwards of $300,000. Or you have to first be appointed by the mayor.
District elections provides nice neighborhood representation, but the big thing it does is take big money out of the game and allow candidates who have good ideas and are willing to work hard to win without spending most of their waking hours raising money from people who will call in the chits later.
Posted by tim redmond | November 3, 2009 09:57 PM
Looks like good news except for the whoring of Candlestick.
Posted by Wolverine | November 3, 2009 11:03 PM
As Lucretia mentioned, 14% of the people voted, without a shit load of retires to vote "no" on everything like the rest of the nation, the next group of voters in SF are the true believers.
It's entertaining the desperation of the left in this city.
Posted by glen matlock | November 4, 2009 04:42 PM