Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Poison We Never Talk About in School
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Don’t Buy Lies About Social Security
- UN Report: Israel Must Immediately Dismantle Settlements or Face ICC
- Domestic Fair Trade: A Plea to UNFI and Whole Foods for Justice
Popular content
Today's Top News
Candidates Exploit Ranked-Choice Endorsements
Supervisor David Campos is endorsing Chris Jackson for supervisor in San Francisco's District 10. He's also supporting Tony Kelly, DeWitt Lacy and Eric Smith for that same seat on the board.
Supervisor David Campos speaks during a rally to protest the proposed ordinance that would make it a crime to sit or lie on public sidewalks in San Francisco at City Hall in San Francisco, Calif. on Monday May 10, 2010. (Lea Suzuki photo) Ranked-choice voting, where people can cast ballots for three candidates instead of one, has changed elections in the city and, not incidentally, made life a bit easier for the politicians, clubs and organizations that are besieged by candidates seeking their backing.
"With ranked choice, there's more of a reason to endorse more than one person," Campos said. "District 10, for example, has four progressive candidates and I couldn't choose among them or have to rank them. They all would make a good supervisor."
But politics also is built on relationships and it's tough for any officeholder to tell a friend that he will endorse someone else.
Now, they don't always have to, which can lead to different types of problems.
Matt Gonzalez, a former supervisor and 2003 candidate for mayor, is backing Kelly as his choice in District 10, which includes Bayview-Hunters Point, Potrero Hill and Visitacion Valley. But when Lacy asked for an endorsement, "I told him he could list me if he made it clear he was my second choice," Gonzalez said.
But when Lacy simply added Gonzalez as a backer, without that important qualifier, the former supervisor pulled his endorsement.
It was simply a mistake, said Lacy, an attorney making his first run for office.
"Maybe it was part of my naivete," he said. "I didn't want to offend anyone."
If Lacy, who is the top choice of the city's Democratic Party, is confused by the new world of ranked-choice endorsements, he's not alone. Every newspaper, political club, elected official and neighborhood group has its own rules for endorsements, and they can be tough to keep track of.
The San Francisco Tenants Union, for example, ranks its endorsements and requires candidates to use that ranking in their campaign material. The city's African American Democratic Club, on the other hand, endorses multiple candidates, but merely lists them in alphabetical order, with no ranking. The Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, though, only listed a top choice for supervisor in the districts where they endorsed this year, disregarding ranked choice.
Not surprisingly, some candidates, dismayed at being a second or third pick, decide that all endorsements are created equal, regardless of ranking. While the Bayview Hunters Point Democratic Club picked Lynette Sweet as its first choice in District 10, with Lacy second and Malia Cohen third, neither Lacy nor Cohen list those rankings on their campaign websites.
For Tim Redmond, executive editor of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, watching candidates misstate his paper's ranked endorsements is a continuing source of frustration.
"It amazes me when someone says they're endorsed by the Bay Guardian and don't mention they were the third choice," he said. "But there's nothing I can do but hope people check the newspaper."
The Guardian, which is a beacon for the city's progressive left, has no problem making multiple endorsements in a ranked-choice vote.
"We decide who meets our threshold and then decide who we like best," Redmond said. "But even if we really like Debra Walker (in District Six), it doesn't hurt to put Jane Kim second."
It's a different story at The Chronicle, where it's one endorsement to a race, ranked choice or not.
"Ultimately, only one is going to get elected," said John Diaz, editorial page editor. "The best we can do for our readers is tell them from the start who we believe is the best candidate."
And endorsements do matter in San Francisco.
A variety of endorsements, from politicians, the media and neighborhood people and groups, play an important role in vetting and validating a candidate, especially in a race with a lot of little-known contenders, said Alex Tourk, a San Francisco political consultant.
"If someone doesn't have any endorsements, it makes people wonder whether the candidate has the experience, the ability to lead or the willingness to work with others," he said.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

2 Comments so far
Show AllFusion voting which the state of New York has would make much more sense for progressives and it works. Single transferrable voting doesn't work except to reinforce iron grip of established political parties. It hasn't worked in Australia except to do just that. First past the past with fusion voting would give minor parties especially progressive ones more leverage. Single transferrable voting is also undemocratic as it throw out one person one vote the real basis for democratic elections. Abraham Lincoln would have lost with either this or proportional representational voting.
The Nazis won with and the far right in Europe wins with p r voting.
Single transferrable voting threw out Ken Liviingstone, a progressive London mayer for a racist Tory mayor. We don't need it at all. This kind of system weakened Labor's victory in the Australian general election of 1972.
Only the New Zealand version of p r voting works for progressives, and that's because there the indigenous people are guaranteed a certain percentage of the seats in the country's chief law making body in the general election. That's not what we've got almost anywhere else. Let's do that kind of p r voting in the USA but guarantee native people over half the votes in the chief law making body to make up for the genocide against them here, as they would have been over half the population without said genocide.
AD
Elections are typically fought over a handful of issues and politicians have been known to betray their campaign promises.
Progressives are disappointed with elections because politicians don't back public opinions on a very large number of progressive issues.
If we gave up on the left-right paradigm and focused on the public opinion versus corporate opinion paradigm, progressives would make great strides with their issues.
Solution: A populist party that guarantees to support the opinion of the portion of the public that chooses to have an opinion on any subject. With the help of the Internet, Congress and the White house could poll the interested public on thousands of issues.
Most progressive issues would make the populist list. Some would not. The ones that don't make the list now could make the list at a later point in time after the public is better informed of the pros and cons of those issues.
(D) and (R) have enough anti-populist policies to be called the lesser evil by their respective sets of voters.
It's time for a new paradigm.