35,000 votes still out

|
(33)

The Department of Elections says there are about 34,500 ballots still to be counted -- 27,000 election-day absentees and 7,500 provisionals. That would be about one sixth of the total votes. Not enough to make a huge difference, but if they break the way the election-day votes did, the mayor's race will get tighter (although probably not enough to make a difference) and Ross Mirkarimi will pull further away in the sheriff's race. The only other difference: Prop. H may wind up losing -- not that it matters, since it's only a policy statement anyway and the school board is not about to change a system it developed over two years of public hearings.

Comments

Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to believe that these uncounted votes would break down any differently than the rest of us.

Chances are Lee is ahead any which way.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 3:27 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 1:33 pm

Or the votes may reinforce the original absentee result. Any history on how election day absentees have skewed?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 3:30 pm

Uh uh - the school board decides what's good for the peons of San Francisco and if they don't like it then they can just shove it! The Greenies on the school board know what's best for you and for your children. Stop arguing and do what they say!

Posted by guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

Organize and vote them out. But please stop whining, its undignified.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 4:40 pm

I thought we were sending a message to the school board, I guess that's considered "whining" these days - sorta like what I'm hearing from progressives now that they've, once again, lost the DA and mayoral elections.

Posted by guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

The moderates love to say how policy statements are a waste of money. I actually disagree. I think they have their place. But for a policy statement to be effective, you really need a mandate. A hair over 50% is no mandate.

If the goal of the conservatives was to send the school board a message that there's a political price to pay for opposing segregation, then with the city split 50-50 on this issue, that message has NOT been sent.

But the School Board should not ignore this vote by any means. They need to get out there and tell people why segregation is still wrong for this city. I actually think they took the right approach in their campaign. It's a line of reasoning that speaks to conservative, pro-neighborhood school types, as I demonstrated by convincing my own conservative relatives with essentially the same argument. But the message got lost amidst the larger races, and the Board should continue to educate the city on what the "neighborhood schools" movement really means -taking away choice.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 5:21 pm

They need 50% +1.

With the entire city establishment against H it's amazing that it's getting the support it is. We've been fed decades of bullshit about how neighborhood schools are racist, elitist etc... and as you can see from the results on H - people still aren't buying it because they know it's not working.

Posted by guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 5:38 pm

go to a school in the neighborhood where you live?

Over 50% is a mandate. It's called democracy.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 5:40 pm

I just think giving parents a choice is the better option. And this is something most people don't understand about "neighborhood schools."

I was asked that question when explaining this initiative to my pro-neighborhood schools conservative relatives. The conversation went like this:

"So this would allow parents to send their kids to their neighborhood school?"
Me: "No. Again, parents have that right NOW. If there's not enough space for everyone, there's a lottery. Not everyone gets their pick, but the majority do. This would FORCE everyone to go to the closest school, even if they don't want to."
"Oh, OK. Then no."

When it's explained, people get it!

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

But that's not completely accurate either... prop H would give neighborhood residents top priority, but people could still list other schools if they don't want their distict schhol. The difference is that the top schools would fill up with district residents who would now have priority, so the choices for people who don't want their local school would be greatly reduced.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

select a school in Bayview.

They just shouldn't be forced to do that.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

Once the provisionals are counted tomorrow, you'll be on the losing side.

OBEY THE MANDATE of the 50%+1!!!

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:32 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:49 pm

Not that I necessarily agree with the sentiments of the other poster, but what exactly is undignified about an individual exercising his or her First Amendment right to express a political opinion?

Last time, I checked, expressing ones dissatisfaction with elected officials was called speaking ones mind, not "whining."

My suspicion is you disagree with the opinion being expressed, and if that is the case, then just say so, rather than trying to change the discussion.

Posted by Chris on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

The only person who's in question now is Mirkarimi, who holds a 52.77% to 47.23% lead over Miyamoto.

Link: http://www.sfelections.org/results/20111108/data/mayor.html

Mayor and DA is done.

Posted by Longtime Lurker on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 4:22 pm

You've been pretty sober for a conservative, LL, so don't start giving in to delusions now. There's no way a 5.5% gap can be overcome.

Congratulations Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi!

And 39% is actually not too shabby, given how the mayoral campaign went. Given the voter disengagement, the fraud, the enormous IEs, and frankly the lackluster progressive campaign, matching Ammiano's total isn't a terrible result. It still means Ed Lee for four more years, but we'll be back.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 5:12 pm

Interesting interpretation. and elsewhere, you claim 51% isn't a mandate on Prop E. hmm.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

The voters RESOUNDINGLY rejected Scott Weiner's attempt to usurp the will of the voters.

Are you talking about H? H was a policy statement, not a charter amendment, nor even an ordinance. When Chris Daly got Question Time passed with 60% of the vote (which actually *was* a mandate), Emperor gavin Newsom promptly ignored it. It was finally passed as an ordinance.

The purpose of prop H was to bully the BOE and show that there is a political cost to doing the right thing and opposing segregation. And with the city split 50-50, that clearly failed. The pro-segregation forces are welcome to come back with a binding vote, but just like the conversation I had with my own pro-neighborhood schools relatives, I think the more people learn about what it really means, the more will be opposed. I think you'll lose if you try to make it law.

And... there's another thing to consider. There are some things no majority should be able to take away. In 1954, we had a Supreme Court decision called Brown vs. Board of Education. If you were to somehow re-impose school segregation by fiat, expect a vigorous court challenge on behalf of the city's minority communities.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 1:20 pm

He said there was 35,000 ballots uncounted, and Ross' lead is a little under 8,000. I looked at the way the RCV broke down and more of Cunnie's supporters listed Miyamoto as the second choice. Hence my post.

As far as calling me a conservative... ok, guy. Sure. I'm actually a 31 year old out gay man, went to Berkeley, spent extensive time campaigning for Obama in '08 and canvassing states for women's reproductive rights. On a national scale of left and right, with 1 being conservative and 10 being liberal, I would probably fall around an 8. I've donated significant amounts of money to very liberal causes.

But to you I'm a conservative.

*So, do you ever consider that maybe it's your movement's problem?*

Setting rigid standards for inclusion does not lend itself to a successful movement. You have an extremely black and white view of the political perspective, and as a result you don't just have poor crossover appeal, you actually have no crossover appeal.

I would think now more than ever, the SF progressive scene would be looking inward. You are losing power at a pretty alarming rate here, yet the rhetoric coming from your camp is still about *everybody else* but you. Chris Daly's response to the results is just embarrassing to read: "Even with RCV, Ed Lee finishes with only 43% of ballots cast. Only 8.5% of San Franciscans marked him 1, 2, or 3! Given the dirty money, voter fraud, and smoke-filled rooms, that's hardly a mandate. Time for progressives to step-up our opposition."

What the hell is this? How many losses do you guys need to take before you stop ranting about how bad the opposition is, how dirty they are, how they don't really speak for the city, how they are just crooks... and start wondering

"GEE, MAYBE OUR MESSAGE KIND OF SUCKS?"

Good lord, it's staring you guys in the face and you will do anything not to recognize it. You just took a pretty firm beating from one of the most un-dynamic candidates I have ever seen. Your one victory (Mirkarimi) comes at the cost of losing a crucial seat in D5. Look where you were 10 years ago, and look where you are now, and tell me you're not moving backwards.

Or just keep whining about how it's all so unfair and alienating potential allies. I don't really care.

Posted by Longtime Lurker on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 7:14 pm

I'm kind of surprised so many Herrera votes went to Lee.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

So much for Occupy San Francisco.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

Not a convincing show of strength on his behalf at all.

Posted by guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

LEE; 13%
MIRKARIMI; 18%

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

You're making the right point Pat, but 13% is too low for Lee. He got at least 18%.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

Now that Lee is the Mayor, what is interesting is that voter turnout was shamefully low.
One has to give Lee the devils due. He and his cronies have been playing 3D chess while progressives played some ping pong.
Looking at the numbers, 56 percent of the 33 percent of voters rejected Ed who in the end finished with 44 percent of the vote. 28 .5 percent did not vote for either Ed or Avalos either because of strategy or the fact that they wanted another candidate.

It will be interesting to see how much money Ed finally spent directly on his campaign.

But, reading the numbers, Progressives need To regroup, recharge and hope John can preform miracles over the next year. 2012 is a re election year for Avalos, Mar and Chiu. With such a dismal turnout over all, San Francisco is either disenchanted with electoral politics or disengaged from the usual suspects including Ed Lee who did not win with a mandate with the voting base of San Francisco.

My guess that the BO'S will eliminate public financing and IRV over the next year.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 6:24 pm

It's always something isnt it. I have been here for 12 years and I have often heard the refrain " Progressives need To regroup, recharge" after not getting elected.
Ammiano, mandelman, gonzalez, and now Avalos.

What do you expect when your mantra is based on a slightly more modern robin hood fairy tale.
I have yet to see a reasonable "progressive" candidate in SF. Keep SF freaky y'all!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 9:23 am

The big issue now is who is Slick Willie gonna want to replace Ross. This will be the first indication of how 'indepenent' Mr Ed really is. Hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid it's just gonna more of the same control of San Francisco by the criminal enterprise.
Stay tuned.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 09, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

Someone who isn't a Willie stooge but also isn't a left-wing hack.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 10:27 am

The margin has shrunk from 50.8%, to 50.06%!

The way it's going in the late absentees, it should go down.

Ha! It's a MANDATE!!!!!!!!

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 4:39 pm

really a politically contentious issue whether kids should attend a local school. The current system hurts the city because families move out of the city or put their kids in private school.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:04 pm

Now that it looks like it's going down, it's suddenly advisory? Just a few minutes ago it was a mandate, and anyone who dared ignore a 50.8% mandate attracted the ire and righteous indignation of the moderates! But now that it's going the progressive way, it's suddenly meaningless again. You people crack. me. up!!!

And "not contentious"? Neighborhood schools? Not contentious? Are you f-ing kidding me?

OBEY DA MANDATE!

Posted by Greg on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

But I'm sure you'd like to control that.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 10, 2011 @ 5:48 pm