ANTI GUN Don Perata former State Senate Pro

[TACTICAL SYSTEMS]

ANTI GUN Don Perata former state senate pro ran for mayor of Oakland
and LOST to Asian American WOMAN *** YEH
Final numbers just in ** 51 percent to Perata s 49 percent

[Saigon1965]

I saw that this morning - Good luck to the new mayor - She is an anti herself -

[NightOwl]

I thought she was more anti than Perata. Am I wrong?

[bwiese]

I thought she was more anti than Perata. Am I wrong?

No. She's just as anti in a different way.

Perata for all we castigate him was just a POS opportunist. If there were controversy over rabbits' feet, he'd be against them if it he could get a vote. The gun issue has died down now and he's moved onto other subjects (on some of which there's moderate rationality). Plus he's been buffeted (justifiably, IMHO) by the FBI investigation of he and his son.

Jean Quan is an anti by intent and not just politics-of-the moment.
She makes Perata's politics look like a conservative.

[Wherryj]

Isn't she the one that has multiple Youtube videos showing her sleeping during the council meetings?

If so, perhaps she's anti-, but won't be able to get much done due to her sleep apnea? (just guessing on the diagnosis)

Oh, and I heard about this. Perata actually won, but Oakland did some sort of "rank 'em" vote this time. You voted for your top three (six?) in a ranking order. She lost if you looked at "number one" votes (which would have typically won an election), but she had more "second and third votes" is what was said on the news this morning.

Sounds kind of hokey, but fits well for Jokeland I guess.

[bwiese]

When Calgunners and NRA MC members combined in an attempt to fight various local ordinances at a City Council meeting you could tell she was one of the "the fix is in" parties.

[Wherryj]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2010/11/businesses-eager-to-work-with-oakland.html

[Mikeb]

The Don unemployed, that's something to be happy about. Quan for mayor not so much. I hated the rank voting thing. I could find one guy an the ballot that I didn't feel to bad about voting for, but three? good luck.
Quan lost me when she got mugged and was saying something like, " Oh, he's probably just unemployed and trying to take care of his family."
But, Barbara Lee got 87% in her race...
There is no hope for Oakland.
Mike

[schnellfeuer300]

[Skidmark]

Oh, and I heard about this. Perata actually won, but Oakland did some sort of "rank 'em" vote this time. You voted for your top three (six?) in a ranking order. She lost if you looked at "number one" votes (which would have typically won an election), but she had more "second and third votes" is what was said on the news this morning.

Perata did not "actually" win. If he had amassed 50% plus one of the vote, in voter's first choices, he would have been declared the winner, and new Mayor. But his initial catch was well below 50%, and so the Ranked Choice Voting provided a means of holding an instant runoff election. After several rounds, Quan achieved more than 50% of the votes, and "actually" won the election. Perfectly logical system, which is denounced primarily by old-school politicians (like Willie Brown) who don't like the power it takes away from them in runoff elections.

[chuckdc]

Quan would probably be easier to defeat next time in an election. Perata had a permanent money-making machine somewhere that seems to have kept his career alive and his backside out of prison.

[Code7inOaktown]

The whole instant run off was a farce. My wife was telling me that about 18,000 votes were note counted because they didn't vote for the top three candidates. In a real run off, who would those 18,000 people have actually voted for.

[JJE]

This is what Perata's mayoral campaign website says:



Don Perata's actions will continue to haunt us for years. Gun owners in CA have no worse enemy. Perata's heart may not have been in it, but he did more harm than any single other person.

And those are just his misdeeds that relate to firearms. Along with Willie Brown, Perata presided over the legislatures that put CA on the road to ruin.

[fairfaxjim]

Perata is not going away - he is too much of a publicity whore to do that!
I really despise that guy, but would have preferred him as mayor of Oaktown. Oakland is a cesspool and Don is the perfect guy to be at the helm of that dung heap - and he can't do much widespread damage as mayor of Oakland.

I expect him to end up being appointed by Gov. Jerry to some cushy commission or board for awhile and then he will pop up, hopefully where he can't do any damage.

[Wherryj]

Perata did not "actually" win. If he had amassed 50% plus one of the vote, in voter's first choices, he would have been declared the winner, and new Mayor. But his initial catch was well below 50%, and so the Ranked Choice Voting provided a means of holding an instant runoff election. After several rounds, Quan achieved more than 50% of the votes, and "actually" won the election. Perfectly logical system, which is denounced primarily by old-school politicians (like Willie Brown) who don't like the power it takes away from them in runoff elections.

Actually it isn't. Let's say that he received 49% and Quan had 30%. The "ranking" thing goes live, but only 10% of the people who didn't "vote" for Perata voted for him as the second choice. However, 50% don't know who Quan is and randomly voted for her.

Guess who your new mayor is?

The votes should have stayed for "first choice" with some sort of ranking similar to hockey: A "win" is 2 points, a "tie" is 1 point and a loss is zero.

First choice is 5, second is 3, third is 1...Not all equally weighted. A "she's not as good as Perata, but I'd vote for her second" isn't exactly the same as
"I want her for mayor". She should have only won if she had a LANDSLIDE more 1st PLUS 2nd votes than the guy who won the majority of ACTUAL votes.

That being said, I'm glad that I don't live in Oakland. I suspect that voting for "none of the above" wouldn't have resulted in their leaving the seat vacant?

This system ONLY works if EVERYONE understands precisely how it works. If you ONLY want choice 1 you vote for NO ONE else. By voting for a first, a second and a third, you could literally end up voting AGAINST your first choice and FOR the "also ran" without even knowing it.