Jean becomes Oakland's first female and first Asian mayor. That, alone, is massively cool.
The outcome has rankled the Perata Campaign, which has put out strong signals that it plans to file a lawsuit to have the vote count "reconsidered."
As Perata Campaign Manager John Whitehurst has said to the media
"It's a travesty that a candidate that wins 78 percent of the precincts and leads by more than 11,000 votes (after first-choice votes are counted), with a margin of nearly 10 percent, loses the election. In any other contest it would be a landslide win, not an election loss. Ranked-choice voting is an injustice, and Oakland will pay the price."
But that's the media spin, and add to that the Perata camps assertion that Don won "all of the African American precincts." The Perata Campaign and supporters are putting out all of the signs that point to only one conclusion: a lawsuit. None of my sources would deny that possibility. Moreover, the Perata camp is issuing a press release that contains a blog post from Lance Williams that, until now, has not been mentioned in any of the media coverage.
The title of the blog post says it all: "Confusion about Oakland’s voting system may have affected election." And these three paragraphs are key to its message:
One out of every 10 Oakland voters showed signs of confusion about how to vote for mayor using the city’s new ranked-choice voting procedure, according to a computer analysis of returns obtained by California Watch.
The confusion was so great that it may have flipped the final results of the extraordinarily tight mayor’s race between former state Senate leader Don Perata and city council member Jean Quan, the analysis shows....
More than 5 percent of voters marked the same candidate for their first, second and third choices, the analysis shows. But a voter can only vote for a candidate once, so for these 4,900 voters those second and third choices went uncounted.
The other factor upsetting the Perata campaign is that Quan and Councilmember Kaplan openly "gamed" the Rank Choice System. Now, from this blogger's perspective, not making voting deals with the other campaigners was a massive error. The Perata Campaign should have fought fire with fire, but openly chose not to do so. The result is Jean Quan wins, but in doing so sets a dangerous precedent for future Oakland elections.
Now, Jean's the target, and if she does not do well as Mayor (which I personally don't think will be the case because I'm going to be on her 24 and 7), the same voting games that got her in, will be the ones that cause her to be out in four years.
That written, Quan can be a great Mayor of Oakland - perhaps the best we've had for a host of reasons I will get into later. It will be exciting to see what she does. Installing a new Chief Administrative Officer to replace Dan Lindheim will be her first major official action.
Mayor-Elect Quan Does Not Have A Mandate
With all of this, Mayor-Elect Quan must be sure to realize that she does not have a mandate; she did not score the majority of popular votes. That should be of concern for her. The Mayor-Elect must - and I think will - be open to people. Moreover, Jean must - and this can't be overstated - develop a very thick skin. She must work to jettison the idea that people who criticize her aren't in her corner. Not so. She's Mayor of Oakland, now, and that means she's got a PR-issue to deal with every day.
As Oakland Mayor Elihu Harris told me, "Zennie, there are a thousand games you can play in City Hall every day. The question is which one you should play?" What Elihu was saying to me is you always have to watch your back, figure out where the arrows are coming from, and then have a plan to strike back, if it's worth doing so. If you have the right temperament , the game's fun. Jean's got to develop that to be successful.
But that's all to come. Right now, the Perata camp is seething.
Stay tuned.
Zennie, you say "she did not score the majority of popular votes." Before RCV, there would have been a runoff. Based on the preferences voters expressed in this election, in a head-to-hear runoff between Perata and Quan, 51% would have preferred Quan to Perata. She's just as legitimate a victor as any victor who wins a runoff.
ReplyDeleteIt's important not to buy into Perata's "confusion": Perata's complaint that he received more first-choice votes and therefore should win is nonsensical and has nothing to do with RCV. Even before RCV, Quan, Kaplan, and Tuman would have split the anti-Perata vote. In a runof —those anti-Perata votes would have unified to elect Quan. This is exactly what happened with RCV, but compressed into a single election.
Thanks Jim. But what confuses the outcome is the assertion that a healthy percentage of people were confused by RCV. That being the case, it's hard for this blogger to agree that Quan would have won a runoff. It seems you're using the current outcome as the basis for the determination of what would have happened under normal circumstances.
ReplyDeleteZennie, people may have some confusion about exactly how the algorithm works. But no voter needs to know how to run the algorithm.
ReplyDeleteThe only things a voter needs to know are: (1) who would I most like to have for mayor, (2) if I can't have that person, who of the other candidates do I like best?, and (3) if not that person, who?
You could ask any kid what his/her favorite, next-favorite, and next-next-favorite colors, foods, TV shows, video games, whatever, are—and I'm sure they could tell you. This confusion charge is unfounded.
An analysis by The Center for Voting and Democracy (fairvote.org/oakland-faq) showed that 99.8% of Oakland voters cast a valid ballot; 72% ranked 3 candidates (though there's no obligation to do so). And 80% ranked enough candidates so that their vote counted in each round.
Note that even a very prominent Oakland blogger publicly stated her intention to vote only a first-choice candiate, so the fact that not everyone chose to list 3 candidates is not indication of a problem.
If a majority had wanted Perata rather than Quan, they would have listed him somewhere on their ballots above Quan. Instead, a majority listed Quan above where they listed Perata (if they listed Perata at all).
But Jim "72% ranked 3 candidates" instead of 100 percent underscores the problem. Moreover, the vast majority of Oakland bloggers not on major news sites are not widely-read. Thus, one can't assert that what a blogger does impacts the voting practice. If that's what you're getting at.
ReplyDeleteMy point was: A voter who completely understands the rules can rationally choose to list only 1 candidate. There's no rule that you have to list a 2nd or 3rd choice unless you want to.
ReplyDeleteThe only way Perata could have been hurt is by people who didn't vote him as their 1st choice who also didn't put him as a 2nd or 3rd choice. Confusion can't explain why such a phenomenon would have hurt him more than it would have hurt anyone else.
The more-plausible explanation is that many voters didn't like Perata and none of their three choices went to Don or, they listed Don below Quan. In other words, other than the 35% or so of voters who listed him first, the other voters didn't much like him. That falls short of a majority.
Jim, the fact is that Kaplan and Quan gamed the system. They said to their supporters to place the other person as number 2. They were the only tandem to work that way.
ReplyDeleteZennie, what's wrong with two candidates recommending each other as the second choice? Perhaps Perata had hoped that they would tear each other up so that he'd be left alone to take the lead, but what obligates them to? RCV clearly changes the rules of the election game, but for the better IMO.
ReplyDelete51% of voters preferred Quan over Perata, and it would have been the same in a traditional run-off.
WHAT? In traditional voting there's no vote trading. So it's not workable or logical to compare this RCV outcome to "traditional" voting.
ReplyDeleteCandidates can recomend that their supporters vote for one another, but they still have to decide to do so in the privacy of the polling booth. The fact that there was such a strong anti Perata vote (evidenced in the results of the RCV outcome)speaks volumes about Perata, his history, his campaign , his flaunting of the spirit of the campaign finance laws, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe travesty is that a politician who affected outcomes on state budgets and made cigar-room deals with the governor which impacted every Californian, would claim to not understand the "mystery" of RCV. He knew enough to try to stop its implementaion even though a majority of voters approved it in 2006.
ReplyDeleteTo complain of collusion on the part of two other candidates is hypocritical, in light of his godfatherly relationship with Marcie Hodges' campaign. Also, confusion may have reigned abundantly in Perata's mind as his 'sure thing' went up in smoke, but the voters, for the most part, knew what they were doing. As with any new thing, it took a little doing, but mistakes were caught and accurate ballots were submitted. The voters caught on quickly. Not only did RCV save the cost of another election, but the electorate chose the winners fair and square. As with statewide elections, which were not ranked choice, the voters proved that they would not allow elections to be bought by the deepest pockets.
After an historic win by Jean Quan, Oakland can now get to work on the problems facing our city. I for one am relieved to have a mayor's office staffed by grassroots advocates instead of political machine cronies.