Sounds like the Uber Left are scared of the electorate picking someone they may not like. Which is usually the way in City Wide elections.

I don't have a problem with an election either, SO LONG AS THERE IS NO PRIVATE CAMPAIGN MONEY INVOLVED. For all of you like Chris, if you really believe in democracy you should support removing private campaign financing from the at large elections in the City if you want us to support electing a mayor when there is a vacancy. Otherwise, you're just trying to maintain a right winger in the mayor's office by any means you can. If San Francisco really wanted a right winger for mayor, why would it constantly elect left wingers as a majority on the board? The only reason that jerks like Newsom get elected is that they can grossly outspend their opponents with their corporate cash.

Tom,

1. You just don't get it. Large elections are not representative at all, because they depend on large amounts of money, which are used for P.R. lies and propaganda. The general public has no idea what's going on, and in large elections they are more easily brainwashed by P.R. campaigns, whereas in small districts that money doesn't do much. There would be nothing at all representative about this fascist Bay Area Council that you propose, it would be a horrible idea. And BTW, where are these supposed councils? I've never heard of them.

2. How exactly do these different systems, per se, cause different outcomes in the same electorate? Aside from the corrupting influence of money in the at large election for mayor, that is.

3. The checks and balances you espouse is just a way of saying that you don't like the progressive supervisors, so you are willing to impose a right wing mayor with tyrannical veto and other powers on them. These are not two equal sides; this is the rich and powerful v. everyone else. Of course there are exceptions, but that's basically what it boils down to.

Because you do not address the legal buying of elections and subsequent bribery of the winners that's called private campaign contributions, I cannot take your comments seriously. Even the extreme right wing John McCain says this is a serious issue. So until you address that, everything you say is just supporting the rich and powerful and has no credibility.

neighborhoods to one vote per precinct in recognition of the fact that most of them are property owners and as such are guilty of bourgeois crimes. Or split the city so the only neighborhoods allowed to vote for mayor are the Haight and the Mission.

Well, deal! If voters were so smart, no one would spend money trying to buy elections, because campaign lies and propaganda would have no effect. I was not necessarily referring to anyone on this board -- the posters here are almost certainly more politically aware than the average voter -- but we are a tiny minority of the voting public.

Glen, I did not tell you what the left thinks, because I'm not a leftist. I happen to agree with the left on most issues, but my main issues are opposing war and advocating for the natural environment. Everything else is secondary. Leftist think that money is the most important thing in the world, just like right wingers do. They just have opposing views on how it should be distributed. While I favor the left regarding those issues, they take a back seat to the natural environment and preventing wars.

My main problem with special elections is the low turnout, which skews the results to favor candidates with money, name recognition or a single particular interest group that's well mobilized. Whenever possible, you should try to hold elections at a regularly scheduled date when everything that needs to go before the voters can be decided.

If Newsom were going to leave in the middle of his term, I'd say: Let's have an election at the next possible date. I'm not sure that having a special March election in a year when there's a mayoral election in November anyway makes a lot of sense.

I think Campos has a point: This isn't about democracy. (Newsom has never once suggested that supervisorial vacancies by filled by special election; why should he? He got his job through a mayoral appointment.) It's about not likely a particular outcome and wanting to change the rules to avoid it.

But again, for the record: I'm not against a special election for mayor, as long as the change in law also requires special elections for supervisors when that job becomes vacant -- and the election includes public financing, and is consolidated whenever practical with an existing, scheduled election.