The Mandate-Free Primary
Voters Send Murky Message
Of course now the time has come for the Wednesday-morning quarterbacking, although we've waited until the afternoon for our own. Everyone will be weighing in with their perspectives on just what this primary election means, so here's our analysis.
Mayor
For us, the biggest story of the Mayoral race is the utter embarassment of it for Jim Francesconi. It seems fairly clear from first-hand reports and late-night newscasts that the 800-pound gorilla of this campaign seemed unsettled (our own biases here admittedly made his manner on television last night seem almost indignant that the race has not been delivered to him, but that's entirely subjective on our part) by this particular turn of events, in which his record-setting campaign warchest was not enough to garner him more than 34.50% to the grassroots-delivered 42.34% of Tom Potter.
While Potter graciously reaches out to supporters of Phil Busse, James Posey, and Brad Taylor -- we say graciously because it's nearly a given that the supporters ot Busse and Taylor, at least, are nearly guaranteed to back Potter over Francesconi -- we're curious to see what sorts of shake-ups the Francesconi campaign undertakes, since their primary strategy so massively failed them.
As for Busse, he repeatedly stated that he would be pushing his platform regardless of the outcome of the Mayoral race. His camp is formulating their strategy for doing just that, so expect to hear more from him later on. And there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that many Portlanders would like to see Posey make a run for City Council, so we'll see if he makes a play for one of the seats in 2006 (we suggest the one currently held by Commissioner Dan Saltzman).
Commissioner No. 1
Perhaps the most curious race is the one for the seat being vacated by Francesconi. While Nick Fish received 47.78% of the vote -- coming within three percentage points of the magic 50%+1 -- the 37.08% received by Sam Adams suggests to us that the attempts to tie Adams to his former boss didn't quite have the intended effect.
Either a fair portion of the electorate didn't buy the premise that Adams was simply going to be more of Mayor Vera Katz, or they decided that such an idea was fine by them. We will presumably have a better sense of this as the runoff campaign proceeds.
Also an open question here is just where the 9.04% of the vote which went to Jason Newell would have gone had he not been in the race. It's entirely an instinctual hunch on our part, but we bet that those who didn't simply decide to refrain from casting a ballot in this race altogether would have been more likely to back Fish than Adams -- which might have put Fish past the magic number.
Commissioner No. 4
Finally, while Randy Leonard secured his own magic number by receiving 52.86% of the vote, and is headed to being to sole candidate on the ballot for his seat in November, it's also important to note that 47.14% of voters cast their ballots for his opponents -- hardly an overwhelming or run-away endorsement of the incumbent.
It makes us wonder how the race would have played out had Leonard's opponents opted to run a single candidate against him rather than a loose-knit coalition. As much as we admire the creativity behind the neighborhood insurgency, a single neighborhood-backed candidiate might have been able to coalesce support into a honed and focused campaign.
Here the open question is whether or not opponents will attempt to capitalize on that 47.14% by organizing write-in campaign against Leonard for the general election, presumably turning either to Frank Dixon or Mark Lakeman, the next-highest vote-getters in the race, with 7.83% and 8.27% respectively.
What seems clear to us when looking at all three races is that there is no ringing endorsement, no clear and obvious mandate from Portland voters, although today's Oregonian would have you believe otherwise, since they argued that there was a clear cry for "change" in City government. We don't believe the numbers actually convey such a resoundingly direct message.
Addendum: Write-In Report
As a final tidbit, we paid a visit to the Elections Division today to ask about the procedure for finding out the break-down of write-in votes. Obviously, based upon our endorsements, we are curious to learn the write-in specifics for the District Attorney (where 3,284 write-in votes were cast) and Commissioner No. 4 (where 1,903 write-in votes were cast) races. The short answer is that we need to ask the question again in another week or two, because right now they don't have an official word on whether that break-down will appear in the final and certified election results, or whether it will require a specific request.
Addendum: Turnout Is Unfair Play
Actually, the final word will go to S. Renee Mitchell who in today's Oregonian chastizes the nearly 60% of the registered electorate which did not cast any ballots at all. Parenthetically, this is another reason why -- contrary to the voters' wrong-headed support for Measure 26-53 -- we should not be choosing office-holders in the primary election.
May 19, 2004 at 02:33 PM
I think any first-ballot victory, such as Leonard's, is a mandate of sorts.
And if we're going to be without Katz and Francesconi next year, I'd definitely call that a vote for change.
The O is just dealing with the fact that two of their endorsees for city office lost and are trailing badly. There will come a day when candidates will try *not* to get The O's tired, lazy backing.
May 19, 2004 at 02:35 PM
The matter of whether or nto to want The O's endorsement actually came up in the Adams/Fish race at the Candidates Gone Wild! event.
May 19, 2004 at 04:14 PM
I would like to hear more about the anecdotal evidence for support for a Posey run.
I think we need more women and minorities (seeing how, after Katz leaves, we won't have any of either) on the City Council.
But, Posey -- he's just so inarticulate! He really didn't fare well in the KGW debate. He seems to say a lot of off-the-wall things. Plus, he seems exclusively interested in business and minority issues.
Am I alone in this impression? What are people saying? Do they think he could beat Dan Saltzman?
May 19, 2004 at 04:19 PM
Well, the anecdotal evidence is just that: anecdotal. At more than one Mayoral event, I've heard people in attendance express support for the idea.
May 19, 2004 at 04:41 PM
I have to agree with Jack on first ballot mandates, especially in the Randy Leonard race. The "insurgency" failed to achieve their stated goal of forcing a run-off. A majority of people that voted rejected the "insurgency" and supported Mr. Leonard.
I'd love to see a precinct-by-precinct breakdown from the Randy Leonard race to see how the "insurgency" faired in the East of 39th Ave precincts, and more so in the east of 72nd Ave preceincts. Remember, Randy was the first commissioner elected from east of 39th Ave, ever.
May 19, 2004 at 04:47 PM
The "insurgency" failed to achieve their stated goal of forcing a run-off. A majority of people that voted rejected the "insurgency" and supported Mr. Leonard.
The insurgency certainly failed in their stated objective, yes. But that "majority" you speak of is a slim one. Leonard is fond of saying that we should not ignore the hidden or silent people of the City, and rightly so. But we also should not ignore it when nearly half the votes go to someone other than the incumbent.
Put it another way: If a single candidate had won that 47% of the vote, would people so easily be calling Leonard's 53% some sort of outright mandate?
May 19, 2004 at 05:14 PM
B!x's spin on Randy's win: "If a single candidate had won that 47% of the vote, would people so easily be calling Leonard's 53% some sort of outright mandate?" is dead on.
I don't think we would be calling it a mandate at all.
On another note, I'd love to see Phil Busse on city council someday. I think after he follows through on his platform in these next couple of years he could run a really strong race next go around. Would it be Busse v. Posey in 2006, if Saltzman steps down?
May 19, 2004 at 05:28 PM
Another few random observations, in very rough form because I am only beginning to thnk about them.
One of the things that is interesting about Leonard's seat on the Council and the campaign for it is that it underscores, I think, the split that exists in Portland when it comes to forms of government. Leonard's tendency to dismiss neighborhood leaders and activists as unrepresentative, I'd argue, is entirely in line with his support for changing the form of Portland governance to a district-based system.
What I mean by this is that Leonard's approach to governing is an adversarial one. I don't mean by this to imply the more negatively-inclined "confrontational." District-based governance -- like our legal system -- is an adversarial approach, where competing interests are directly represented and duke it out, so to speak.
In a district-based system, a City Council member would have the job of representing a certain sub-group of the Portland population, and would be working with colleagues who job is to represent other sub-groups of the Portland population.
In a commission-based form of government like the one we have now, the point is to elect generalists to City Council. whose job is to understand and balance the interests of everyone in the City (Setting aside for the moment whether or not we always elect people who actually do this, this generalized approach nonetheless is the intended idea.)
What we see not only in Leonard's support for districts but in his dismissal of neghborhood leaders and activists as unrepresentative of and/or unresponsive to the needs of so-called "working-class" Portlanders is the mindset and approach of an official who prefers an adversarial system of governance.
There is nothing inherently flawed in either design for governance, although personally I prefer the commission-style in which (theoretically) generalism and cooperation is meant to be the rule.
But I think many of the various conflicts over Leonard's tenure on City Council perhaps can be explained by his being (in essence) a district/adversarial public official serving in a (theoretically) generalist/cooperative government.
May 19, 2004 at 05:37 PM
So if I have this right (please correct me if I'm wrong), none of these runoffs will ever happen again after this year (and Nov.) because MEASURE 26-53 CITY OF PORTLAND has passed.
This saddens me. That means we will never ever have elections with Extremo the Clown, or even with people like Phil Busse. People with good spirit and good ideas that, although they may never have a snowballs chance in hell of actually getting elected, still brought a lot of spark and intelligence into our debates and city politics.
We will never have them again, because noone wants to incur the "Perot" or "Nader" effect. Noone will be able to afford to vote their conscience in James Posey just one time, because you never know just how it would effect a race.
I hear a lone trumpet playing 'Taps' in the distance...
Farewell Jim Spagg, farewell quirky Portland (Keep Portland Weird bupersticker has a whole new meaning for me now), farewell letting the little guy have a voice for one shining electoral moment, goodbye...goodbye.
May 19, 2004 at 05:47 PM
47% voted for the neighborhoods. 47% (now, isn’t this interesting), also voted for either Potter or Busse or Posey (minus a few neighborhood Francesconi supporters). (The O may not have noticed, but for those of us who have been to a few :-) Potter events, the crowds were "rich" with neighborhood folks.) And at the neighborhood insurgency party last night a big cheer went up when it became clear that Potter was going to the next round.
Yep. That’s one hell of a new-born electoral power, if you ask me. Too many to be just a few “activists” who don’t care about schools or jobs -- just “land-use”…
The “neighborhood insurgency” was a clever and interesting strategy. But I’d say the question of what would have happened had we all united behind one candidate will be forever moot. There was no money, there was no time, and there was but a very rudimentary political structure to bring the disparate neighborhood folks together under one banner.
That was then.
What there was, though, was a realization that power flows from the ballot box. That our civic goals and dreams were being more and more frequently flushed in the backrooms of special interests -- because of the perception on the part of the powers that be -- that they could. That we were just a few powerless folks with no political constituency to bite the hand picking our pockets or plunking down driveways to multi-story parking garages right where our toddlers ride their trikes.
That was then.
47%. :-)
Anne
May 19, 2004 at 05:56 PM
pdxkona wrote: "So if I have this right (please correct me if I'm wrong), none of these runoffs will ever happen again after this year (and Nov.) because MEASURE 26-53 CITY OF PORTLAND has passed."
This is NOT correct. Measure 26-53 means that candidates who won 50% + 1 in the primary will not appear in the November general election. In any race where no one wins the requisite majority there will still be a runoff between the top two candidates (e.g. this year's mayoral race would be unchanged--a runoff would still happen).
While b!X has raised an interesting point about the potential of running a write-in candidate under the present system, I don't think BM 26-53 will really have much of an effect (though that doesn't necessarily make it good policy).
May 19, 2004 at 06:00 PM
About the Commissioner # 4 race consider the following. At the get-together for neighborhood insurgent candidates last evening I did a rough and ready tally of the amount they collectively spent on their campaigns. Total = $40,000. Compare this to Randy Leonard who, given the TV adds and double glossy mailings he sent out, spent $200,000 plus. So his extra $160,000 plus the enormous factor of being the incumbent only gained him a winning margin of 3% (3% of voters casting for the insurgents would have created a tie). In addition, the neighborhood candidates only started active campaigns in mid March, two months before the election. Finally, if each of the 8 neighborhood candidates had polled only half a percent more, they would have forced the election into a runnoff. In my book, this suggests that the insurgent campaign was the best strategy. I would seriously doubt that a single candidate, with only two months to campaign and $40,000 (assuming they alone could have raised this amount) would have produced such a close election.
May 19, 2004 at 07:08 PM
I think the jury's still out on the merits of the "Neighborhood Insurgency" strategy.
It's pretty easy to form a coalition in the primary like this, because every small candidate is in a de facto coalition against the putative front-runner anyway.
The real issue would've been how effectively they could have banded together behind one of them for the general election.
So I think Charles' assessment of the campaigns successes, though impressive, is just an aggregate of the various campaigns' accomplishments, and doesn't speak to the success or failure of "the strategy" generally.
My 2-cents is: the important thing to take away from the "insurgency" is that there's a base of support for moving neighborhood ideas and people into City Hall, but the various groups need to find an articulable message that connects people with no special connection to "the neighborhoods." Leave the "strategy" stuff to Karl Rove.
May 19, 2004 at 07:08 PM
I'm backing off of my earlier comments regarding any kind of mandate for Randy Leonard. But the sentiment also applies to the "insurgency" candidates.
Doing a little math, Randy Leonard got 52.86% of 44.18% of voters (the percentage turnout). That comes out to only 26% of voters supporting Randy Leonard. And as for the "insurgency," 47.14% of the 44.18% voter turnout comes out to only 20.8% of registered voters.
Look like neither command much of anything except in overall voter numbers.
May 19, 2004 at 09:32 PM
Speaking of overall "voter numbers," S. Renee Mitchell (in b1X's linked piece) says "voter apathy is an issue in virtually every free election throughout the world." I'll be interested to look into this but don't take it at face value.
It ties in with earlier comments, though, about voters getting the candidates mixed up. I find, outside blogs (to which I suspect most people do not avail themselves) a paucity of information about these representatives in the newspapers and markedly on tv to make voting near impossible for the vast majority.
So are people here really talking about a majority?
Last comment: Randy Leonard is one that many (of us very outsiders) do know and like, for his fighting, feisty spirit. I wouldn't be to quick to undersell that majority vote, given voter dynamics.
May 19, 2004 at 09:40 PM
I, at least, am not so much underselling Leonard's 53% majority as cautioning people against underselling the 47% who voted against him.
May 19, 2004 at 09:53 PM
The "Neighborhood Insurgency" was the absolute correct strategy considering that no first-tier well-known candidate was willing to jump into the race. The candidates represented very different areas of the city where each is known, while completely unknown in other areas.
Leonard Gard is known is SW through his work with SWNI. Frank Dixon is known in NW Portland. Bonnie McKnight is known in Outer SE. Any one of those candidates could have received the entire anti-Randy Leonard vote, but they brought more to the table by running together. People who personally know one of the candidates would be more likely to vote for them even if they didn't have a particular issue with Leonard.
I believe that if the Oregonian and WW were not so enamored with Leonard, there would have been a run-off. I figure those endorsements were worth at least 5% among undecided voters.
May 19, 2004 at 10:40 PM
As for the Leonard victory, no matter how much spin the haters try to put on it, the long and the short of it is that the neighborhood association types spent a lot of time and energy to do one thing: force RL into a runoff. And they failed. Leonard wins. Four years from now, if he runs again, the issues will be 2005-2008 issues, not Jimmy Brown or what he did when he first got in. That's a big win for him.
PS. In case you haven't noticed, the guy gets all the mandate he needs in the shaving mirror every morning. 8c)
May 19, 2004 at 10:56 PM
PS. In case you haven't noticed, the guy gets all the mandate he needs in the shaving mirror every morning. 8c)
Heh. I imagine that would be one of the things his critics might claim to have a problem with.
May 20, 2004 at 01:26 AM
TimC said:
"I figure those endorsements[Willy Week and Oregonian] were worth at least 5% among undecided voters."
I agree with that. The Oregonian was probably a given, but after running stories about shady things Randy does ( Leonard's Artful Deal, it still boggles my mind that the Willy Week would endorse him. Not to mention the Mercury, who got rightfully lambasted in the letter of the week in Thursday's issue(which for some reason isn't online even though I picked one up downtown already) for endorsing Leonard.
Okay, so there's all the Wednesday morning(it's Thursday morning now!) quarterbacking about what the challengers could have done to campaign better, or what the media could have done to better report their goals(I noticed, in fact, that The Oregonian didn't really have a complete grievance listing until Wednesday's piece!), but the bottom line is, like the Willy Week says: "We appreciate Leonard's challengers' highlighting his shortcomings. He ought to listen to them...", and I'm not sure he's done that.
From the beginning, he responded to his challengers with great umbrage, and in the end he still didn't seem to understand the full nature of the complaints registered against him, as demonstrated when he distilled his challengers complaints to: "I hear a lot about land use."
No shit.
I don't live in NW Portland. I'm not a member of a Neighborhood Association. Guess what: I care about land use.
I also care when candidates say things like:
“I would always choose in the balance between economic development and neighborhood livability to tip in favor of the residents in a neighborhood. The whole point of economic development is to make life better for our residents. Economic development that occurs to the detriment of neighborhoods is, in my opinion, an oxymoron. No business that interferes with neighborhood livability should be allowed. The whole point of zoning is to segregate living areas from business areas.” ( There’s a reason Leonard has many opponents- Portland Tribune letter to the editor, and then backpedal on that and vote to demolish historic homes and replace them with multistory parking garages, and receive awards from homebuilders associations.
Is the whole development thing balanced out by the whole liqour hours thing and other positive things Randy's done? Enough voters thought so, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
I think what most people who didn't support Randy this election would really like to see from him is some hint of humility. Could be awhile.
May 20, 2004 at 09:52 AM
Jack wrote: "the neighborhood association types spent a lot of time and energy to do one thing: force RL into a runoff. And they failed."
While it is true that they failed to achieve a runoff, no analysts thought they had a chance. Remember, one month before the filing deadline, it appeared that Leonard would have a free ride. Everyone thought he would sail to reelection. Instead, he came within two percentage points of being in a runoff where anything could happen - six more months of missteps and turning people off.
As far as the WW's comment about Leonard listening to his critics, that's like asking a leopard to change its spots. How do you change someone's basic nature?
One final comment about this race, I think if James Posey had been in this race instead of the mayor's race, there would have been a runoff.
May 20, 2004 at 10:49 AM
A few thoughts about the media and political coverage.
(a) State and local political coverage is increasingly being moved off the front pages of local papers. And any real analysis of political or neighborhood news on TV is almost non-existent. With TV its all crime, murder and mayhem mixed with infotainment fluff pieces and innane talking head chit chat.
(b) The way that media frame political stories best fits a two candidate model. The two candidate model is simple, adverserial, and it can be reported like a horse race; no need for complex issue analysis. The insurgent candidates had a hard time breaking through that frame. When the media noticed Leonard's opponents, it was only to fit the election into the adverserial frame by reducing it to Leonard vs. The Insurgents. This made it difficult for the candidates to get attention for their alternative ideas and their real problems with Leonard's approach toward governance. They were not just against him, it was the policies he was promoting and his uninformed and costly approach to overseeing his bureaus. Even The One True b!X fell into the trap of considering the candidates petty and strident. I observed the same Candidate Forum that b!X attended and found the Insurgent Candidates to be informed and direct with specific critiques of the policies and directions that Leonard was taking.
(c)Leonard is a natural choice for endorsement because he makes news, and news makes money. If you read between the lines of all the endorsements, you will see a logic that goes something like "we may not agree with everything he is doing, but he does stir things up and thats what City Hall needs now." For the media its the stiring that counts and not the outcome of better government. In comparison, look at their unwillingness to really admit to the real revolution that took place in the election. Tom Potter, with a slow building grassroots effort and a self-imposed campaign limit, outpolled the big money incumbent candidate. But the best the Oregonian could do was a headline, "Potter forces runoff". Potter is so unlike Randy because he does not bask in the intense light of publicity but rather reflects light back on the citizens who support him. The media simply have no frame to grasp this.
May 20, 2004 at 10:56 AM
Even The One True b!X fell into the trap of considering the candidates petty and strident. I observed the same Candidate Forum that b!X attended and found the Insurgent Candidates to be informed and direct with specific critiques of the policies and directions that Leonard was taking.
Heh. I also attended more than just that forum and noticed how each candidate seemed to take a turn being the attack dog, so I had a broader context of having watched their performances over time. If you recall, I didn't slam all the candidates out of that forum, I mainly slammed Lakeman for being hysteric and ugly in his assaults on Leonard. And that wasn't a mistaken characterization of what I witnessed.
Then again, I knew at the time that my Commissioner No. 4 endorsement post was going to piss off supporters of both sides of that race, but my argument would be: Blame the candidates for delivering subpar campaign appearances. Don't blame me for pointing it out.
May 20, 2004 at 11:14 AM
I'm late to the debate, so I'll keep it short. Randy Leonard clearly has a mandate. A very well-organized group of activists with pretty serious political savvy got together to figure out how to unseat a sitting councilman. The strategy they came up with was wise--it difused the electorate, allowed a team approach to attacking Leonard, pooled resources, and earned them a ton of press.
The question about what would have happened if they'd backed one candidate is a good one, and I'll tell you the answer--s/he would have gotten slaughtered. All of the advantages would have evaporated and the result would have been 75% or better for Leonard. An analogue: how would Kerry have done in Oregon if he was running against all the other Dems?
Finally, the last argument I'll make is this--any time you avoid a run-off in a primary, you have a mandate. It's that simple.
May 20, 2004 at 11:33 AM
Media coverage! Oy! It's crazy when I actually attend things and then the news coverage gives you a completely different picture of what happened.
"Potter Forces Runoff" has to be the most mangled headline ever. I'm not sure how finishing 11,000 votes ahead of your nearest competitor "forces" anything, but hey!
I agree with Charles's analysis of the problems with local media- especially tv. They should start reporting on city council meetings, but like you say there's little chance of them moving in that direction
Mandate, mandate, mandate...in my book, Maria Rojo De Steffey getting 60% of the vote IS a mandate, while Randy avoiding a run off by 2 percentage points is just luck.
May 20, 2004 at 12:55 PM
Let's examine Randy Leonard's comment in The Oregonian:
"For most working-class Portlanders, their biggest issue is, do I have a job, is someone going to break into my house, do my kids go to a good school?" Leonard said. "Those are not the things that I hear a lot from activists. I hear a lot about land use."
Is Randy Leonard on the school board?
Is Randy Leonard Police Commissioner?
Among other things, Randy IS Commissioner in charge of the Bureau of Development Services. Is it just me or would that assignment seem to make things like land use something he actually has control over?
Maybe if East County had any land use laws they wouldn't look the way they do now!
May 20, 2004 at 12:57 PM
Maybe if East County had ^had^ any land use laws they wouldn't look the way they do now!
May 20, 2004 at 02:05 PM
I am just thankful I don't live in the Portland Metro area. Between the idiots in the County Commissioners Office to the morons in City Hall - I just say - thank god your there and I'm here..
The lunatics are in charge of the asylum !
May 20, 2004 at 04:27 PM
I think we need a discussion about what the word "Mandate" means. Every politician claims a "mandate" when they are elected, but what does it mean?
I think a mandate means that a candidate has overwhelming support from an informed electorate with high turnout. I think the defeat of the tax increase this year was a "mandate" not to raise taxes. An INCUMBENT receiving 52% of the vote, with 48% of the voters choosing others is more of a repudiation than a mandate.
When was the last time an incumbent received less than 60% of the vote? I'll try and answer that myself if I can find the data.
May 20, 2004 at 05:03 PM
"Potter Forces Runoff" has to be the most mangled headline ever. I'm not sure how finishing 11,000 votes ahead of your nearest competitor "forces" anything, but hey!
Good point, Arya. Why didn't the headline read "Francesconi Forces Runoff"? At least they didn't print "Dewey Wins," but the preconception dominated all the same -- very much the same, didn't it?
I'll look forward to Tim's research on election percentages. Personally, I'd ruther a parliamentarian system that left some representation more places rather than so very much "winner take all."
However, IRV -- instant runoff voting -- is the fastest, easiest, most guaranteed election reform (with a chance of passage) that I am aware of.
May 20, 2004 at 06:23 PM
When was the last time an incumbent received less than 60% of the vote? I'll try and answer that myself if I can find the data.
It just so happens I have the perfect example that helps illustrate my point. Readers may remember that in the 2000 primary, Jake Oken-Berg ran against incumbent Vera Katz. The results of the primary were as follows:
Katz received 55.06% of the vote. Oken-Berg received 26.73% of the vote.
First: Notice how much larger the spread between them is than the spread between Leonard and his colelctive opponents.
Second: Remember that the story coming out of that 2000 primary race was: "19-year-old almost forces Mayor into a runoff."
So, tell me something. If an incumbent receiving 55% to a challenger's 27% becomes "challenger almost forces incumbent into runoff," then why isn't an incumbent receiving 53% to the collective challengers' 47% being reported as "challengers almost force incumbent into a runoff"?
May 20, 2004 at 08:18 PM
"So, tell me something. If an incumbent receiving 55% to a challenger's 27% becomes "challenger almost forces incumbent into runoff," then why isn't an incumbent receiving 53% to the collective challengers' 47% being reported as challengers almost force incumbent into a runoff'?"
Keyword: challengerS.
May 20, 2004 at 08:31 PM
Oh, give me a break.
May 20, 2004 at 09:31 PM
Mayor Katz had 16 challengerS in 2000. Jake Oken-Berg got 27% to Vera's 55% because the other 15 candidates split the remaining votes. Some got a lot of votes - like John David Ernsberger at 5,105 and Bruce Broussard with 4,860. Others only won a few. Only three candidates other than Vera and Jake received over 2,000 votes.
On Tuesday, the challengers won a higher percentage of the vote against the incumbent, with fewer candidates. And all but one of the challengers won over 2,000 votes. "Mandate-free" is an accurate assessment.
May 20, 2004 at 11:04 PM
Randy Leonard's 52.9% is the second lowest percentage of any incumbent who was reelected since at least 1978. In Bud Clark's 1988 reelection campaign, he was held to 49.4% before winning in November with 58%. Four incumbents have lost since 1980, Dick Bogle (1992), Bob Koch (1990), Margaret Strachan (1986) and Frank Ivancie (1984). If Randy Leonard received a mandate this election, EVERY reelected incumbent in the past 24 years also received a mandate.
One more interesting note, Leonard received 52.9% in his election two years ago and received the identical percentage Tuesday. That can't bode well for his political future.
May 20, 2004 at 11:22 PM
"Oh, give me a break."
Ok, b!X, here's your break. If a candidate you supported and endorsed got this same percentage, would you have so many qualms, would there be so much fuss, would there be so much dissection (or implication) of what "mandate" does or doesn't mean? I haven't seen any arguments to raise the percentage required to hold the office rather than split the officeholding into some other sort of representation. I suppose that's where my "give me a break" would come from.
I've had lots of problems with lots of officeholders, but I've never thought to focus on this whole mandate thing. I am failing to see anything really to grab hold of here.
These winners do have an elected office, as the laws are set, with 50+ percent of the vote. Chatter about "mandate" is an awfully amorphous 'responsibility' to lay over that. I don't think that is where I would really want to head.
May 20, 2004 at 11:31 PM
If a candidate you supported and endorsed got this same percentage, would you have so many qualms, would there be so much fuss, would there be so much dissection (or implication) of what "mandate" does or doesn't mean?
First, off, I didn't start the "fuss" about mandates, I merely asserted this election was mandate free. Then several people chimed in with arguments that a bare-majority win qualifies as a mandidate. Then I offered counter-argument and previous history.
Second, if a candidate I supported won by a bare-majority, one thing I would not be doing is crowing about how they had received a mandate -- so don't attempt to paint me as being inconsistent or hypocritical. Also, remember: In this race, I didn't actually endorse any of these people.
I haven't seen any arguments to raise the percentage required to hold the office rather than split the officeholding into some other sort of representation.
Well, what has been offered is the argument that even a majority in a primary should not be enough to technically secure the office. I continue to believe that primaries should be for candidate-selection only. So, in some sense, while I have not argued for raising the percentage required to hold the office, I have argued for a system in which no percentage in a primary guarantees the office.
These winners do have an elected office, as the laws are set, with 50+ percent of the vote. Chatter about "mandate" is an awfully amorphous 'responsibility' to lay over that.
Well, here we simply disagree. Especially because politicians themselves make a big deal out of supposed mandates, and so it's the responsibility of campaign watchers to bullshit-check that tendency.
May 21, 2004 at 10:28 AM
"Second, if a candidate I supported won by a bare-majority, one thing I would not be doing is crowing about how they had received a mandate -- so don't attempt to paint me as being inconsistent or hypocritical. Also, remember: In this race, I didn't actually endorse any of these people."
It was an honest question, not an attempt to paint you as anything, certainly not hypocritical. I'll keep an ear toward any 'crowing' coming from Mr. Leonard. And I'll continue to ponder how an officeholder represents conscience or constituents.
May 21, 2004 at 10:29 AM
PS! I expect your comments will make them ponder, as well.
May 21, 2004 at 10:32 AM
It occurred to me after posting that last comment that I hadn't actually been accused of one thing or another. This week is making me punchy and trigger-happy, I think.
May 21, 2004 at 11:32 AM
Imagine if I paid the money to be in the voters guide. I spent a total of $25 and learned how the whole election process works for next time around. You media might have overlooked me this time, but I was really pushing issues into debates. Was the only one talking about Home Depot moving on EastSide Burnside bridge, IRV, reasons WHY schools are hurting, public power, civil rights, and other progressive ideas.
Even though you never reported on it, I think my point was made to the people I talked to. The media cares more about money and issues. One of the big reasons I liked Busse and Lakeman.
May 21, 2004 at 11:38 AM
Imagine if I paid the money to be in the voters guide. I spent a total of $25 and got 4th place with 1747 votes(2%). Learned how the whole election process works for next time around, definately my biggest mistake was not PAYING to be in the Voters Guide. Giving every candidate a little space in the Voter Guide would be the first step in fair elections and giving the public the power to make the decision. Of course candidates could pay for my words in the Guide.
Media might have overlooked me this time, but I was really pushing issues into debates. Was the only one talking about Home Depot moving on EastSide Burnside bridge, IRV, reasons WHY schools are hurting, public power, civil rights, and other progressive ideas.
Even though you never reported on it, I think my point was made to the people I talked to. The media cares more about money than issues. One of the big reasons I liked Busse and Lakeman.