Bring Back Ebonics!

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
Ok, I'm just playing with the title but a woman who was on Oakland's Board of Education at the time and supported Ebonics was just elected Oakland's new Mayor today. This woman, Jean Quan, didn't even win the most first place votes. Oakland used the RCV, ranked choice voting (i believe it is called), and she got more of the 2nd and 3rd place votes or something like that to win. (Neither here nor there but I still don't understand how it works. We have it in San Francisco. I vote for who I want to win and leave 2nd and 3rd choices blank.)

This woman was also one who particiapted in a human chain during the recent Oscar Grant riots in Oakland to hold police back from protestors who were looting. It's just awesome in a city with such crime to have a Mayor who doesn't like the police.

Since I live across the Bay now I should just laugh but I did grow up there and my sister lives there now so I still care. Oakland is going to continue to be a sad city.
 
It's really in your best interest to fill in the second and third places. Not filling them in is like refusing to vote in the runoff, or only voting in the primary and ignoring the general.

What happened here is that there were two candidates who were really similar, and in the "runoff" they were able to utilize their mutual majority to beat someone who the majority of voters were against.
 
Watermarx said:
It's really in your best interest to fill in the second and third places. Not filling them in is like refusing to vote in the runoff, or only voting in the primary and ignoring the general.

What happened here is that there were two candidates who were really similar, and in the "runoff" they were able to utilize their mutual majority to beat someone who the majority of voters were against.
Click to expand...
No shit. We need more of this kind of voting. If we had a system like this in place like this for national elections we wouldn't end up in a situation where a boob who lost the popular vote ends becoming President.
 
cawacko said:
Ok, I'm just playing with the title but a woman who was on Oakland's Board of Education at the time and supported Ebonics was just elected Oakland's new Mayor today. This woman, Jean Quan, didn't even win the most first place votes. Oakland used the RCV, ranked choice voting (i believe it is called), and she got more of the 2nd and 3rd place votes or something like that to win. (Neither here nor there but I still don't understand how it works. We have it in San Francisco. I vote for who I want to win and leave 2nd and 3rd choices blank.)

This woman was also one who particiapted in a human chain during the recent Oscar Grant riots in Oakland to hold police back from protestors who were looting. It's just awesome in a city with such crime to have a Mayor who doesn't like the police.

Since I live across the Bay now I should just laugh but I did grow up there and my sister lives there now so I still care. Oakland is going to continue to be a sad city.
Click to expand...

It aint hard math Wacko. It means you can't win by a plurality. That you have to have a majority to win and if no one wins a majority of votes then the candidate with the most runoff votes wins. That prevents a politician from splitting the vote and winning with a plurality. Think about how much better off our nation would have been in 2000 had we a run off system to democratically determine our President instead of the courts annointing a man who turned out to be the worst American president since Harding. There was no way in hell W could have won a run-off considering how the vote had been split.
 
Watermarx said:
It's really in your best interest to fill in the second and third places. Not filling them in is like refusing to vote in the runoff, or only voting in the primary and ignoring the general.

What happened here is that there were two candidates who were really similar, and in the "runoff" they were able to utilize their mutual majority to beat someone who the majority of voters were against.
Click to expand...

How would you have ranked vote in 2008 Presidential election saying you like Obama? You had Obama, McCain and a bunch of nobodies. So you pick Obama first and then just some random nobodies second and third? I'm assuming you never put McCain's name on there right?
 
cawacko said:
How would you have ranked vote in 2008 Presidential election saying you like Obama? You had Obama, McCain and a bunch of nobodies. So you pick Obama first and then just some random nobodies second and third? I'm assuming you never put McCain's name on there right?
Click to expand...

Well, if there's seriously nobody else you can ever imagine voting for, and they're all equally bad to you, then it's alright to just cast a bullet vote. In fact that can improve the result.

If we had this kind of system, though, quality third-party candidates wouldn't be so dissuaded from running in the general.
 
Watermarx said:
Well, if there's seriously nobody else you can ever imagine voting for, and they're all equally bad to you, then it's alright to just cast a bullet vote. In fact that can improve the result.

If we had this kind of system, though, quality third-party candidates wouldn't be so dissuaded from running in the general.
Click to expand...

I had to use this method for a Board of Education vote and of the 12 candidates I only knew one and that's who I put in first place and left the rest blank.

But seriously say this was in place for the 2008 election and you liked Obama. So you would put Obama first. Was there a Green candidate in 2008? Maybe you put them 2nd? But I assume you are not putting McCain on your ballot right or do you?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It aint hard math Wacko. It means you can't win by a plurality. That you have to have a majority to win and if no one wins a majority of votes then the candidate with the most runoff votes wins. That prevents a politician from splitting the vote and winning with a plurality. Think about how much better off our nation would have been in 2000 had we a run off system to democratically determine our President instead of the courts annointing a man who turned out to be the worst American president since Harding. There was no way in hell W could have won a run-off considering how the vote had been split.
Click to expand...
"instead of the courts annointing a man"

It always make me laugh....the pinheads favorite lie....

I wonder how long this lie will live in the minds of ignorant pinheads?
Its sad, but I guess for some it will always be their reality....

:D:tongout::D
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No shit. We need more of this kind of voting. If we had a system like this in place like this for national elections we wouldn't end up in a situation where a boob who lost the popular vote ends becoming President.
Click to expand...

So it's about how popular the candidate is and not the platform or the ability to do the job.!!

I can see the conversations now:
GAWD he sucks
Yeah, but he looks good.
 
cawacko said:
I had to use this method for a Board of Education vote and of the 12 candidates I only knew one and that's who I put in first place and left the rest blank.

But seriously say this was in place for the 2008 election and you liked Obama. So you would put Obama first. Was there a Green candidate in 2008? Maybe you put them 2nd? But I assume you are not putting McCain on your ballot right or do you?
Click to expand...

If I put Obama on the top of my ballot it's unlikely that any of the other candidates would be looked at anyway. I'd actually agree with you. If there are no candidates you even vaguely like besides one, it's perfectly fine to leave the rest of the list blank. However, you should really be sure about that. Bullet voting Nader and declaring the Republicans and Democrats to be exactly the same has been proven to be historical stupidity.
 
Watermarx said:
If I put Obama on the top of my ballot it's unlikely that any of the other candidates would be looked at anyway. I'd actually agree with you. If there are no candidates you even vaguely like besides one, it's perfectly fine to leave the rest of the list blank. However, you should really be sure about that. Bullet voting Nader and declaring the Republicans and Democrats to be exactly the same has been proven to be historical stupidity.
Click to expand...

Maybe 1992 would have been different as well. But since one doesn't need a majority to become President the RCV doesn't serve any purpose.
 
cawacko said:
Maybe 1992 would have been different as well. But since one doesn't need a majority to become President the RCV doesn't serve any purpose.
Click to expand...

Even with the electoral college, it's makes more sense to allocate your states electoral vote with RCV than with a standard plurality vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top