CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Pundits deem city election predictable
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Low voter turnout largely uncontested offices, and ballot measures that came without campaigns contributed to predictable election results in San Francisco, according to political consultants gathered for a post-election rundown.
Sponsored by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, or SPUR, the annual event attracts City Hall players and race watchers from across the political spectrum.
Usually held the day after an election, this year’s event was postponed nearly a week due to problems with San Francisco’s voting machines that have resulted in a time-intensive ballot counting process mandated by the state.
As of late Monday, about 14 percent of The City’s estimated 154,000 ballots were yet to be counted, according to San Francisco’s election chief, John Arntz.
Nonetheless, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has been the presumed winner of the mayoral race since day one, having run against a cast of characters that lacked his fundraising ability and political clout.
On Monday, with 124,438 ballots counted, Newsom had 73 percent of the vote, and progressive Quintin Mecke trailed far behind in second place with 7 percent of the votes.
District Attorney Kamala Harris, who ran with no challenger, captured 98 percent of the votes, and Sheriff Michael Hennessey was up 74 percent, with his challenger, deputy David Wong, at 26 percent.
Although there were six charter amendments on the ballot, only one — Measure A, which aims to reform Muni — came with a financially backed campaign.
As of Monday, it had a 10 percentage-point lead.
Conversely, Measure E — which would require the mayor to appear monthly a meeting of the Board of Supervisors — did not have a financially backed campaign of support.
Instead, it came up against, a well-funded campaign of opposition, backed by Newsom.
As of Monday, it was facing defeat by 4 percentage points, despite having been approved by voters as an advisory measure last November.
An ordinance to increase the number of parking spaces in some parts of San Francisco was defeated, largely due to campaigns that cast it as a negative step toward global warming, said the political consultants.
In 2003, more than 46 percent of San Francisco’s registered voters turned out for the mayoral election; this year, a 37 percent turnout has been estimated.
Comments from Examiner Readers
12:45 PM MST on Wed., Dec. 5, 2007 re: "Election results still unofficial"
Report as inappropriate
5:16 PM MST on Fri., Nov. 30, 2007
re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."
Report as inappropriate
8:42 AM MST on Thu., Nov. 29, 2007
re: "Election count may end today"
Report as inappropriate
8:27 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 14, 2007
re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."
Report as inappropriate
12:55 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."
Report as inappropriate
12:23 PM MST on Tue., Nov. 13, 2007
re: "Pundits deem city election predictable"
Report as inappropriate
9:22 PM MST on Mon., Nov. 12, 2007
re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."
Report as inappropriate
12:12 PM MST on Mon., Nov. 12, 2007
re: "Only 30,000 ballots left ..."
Report as inappropriate
6:15 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
re: "Parking measure losing out; 'Question Time' up in air"
Report as inappropriate
3:40 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
re: "Election (not quite) in the bag"
Report as inappropriate
2:45 PM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
re: "Election (not quite) in the bag"
Report as inappropriate
11:28 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
re: "Low turnout could have rippling effects"
Report as inappropriate
10:17 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
re: "This election (not quite) in the bag"
Report as inappropriate
9:41 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
re: "This election (not quite) in the bag"
Report as inappropriate
8:59 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
re: "This election (not quite) in the bag"
Report as inappropriate
8:57 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
re: "This election (not quite) in the bag"
Report as inappropriate
Jack Kirkpatrick said:
It is Wednesday, December 5, 2007 and the November 6, 2007 results are not in? The First Committee on Vigilance should reorganized to combat the Sidney Ducks, aka The Miscreant...; here the ancient story takes a new turn toward modernism. Instead of stealing a small safe from a Long Wharf shipping office our voters are held hostage to an uncertified election. The S. F. election office is calm throughout this ordeal. Ducks expected a rescue party - California Department of State's Debra Bowen -that never materializes and without her assistance the inevitable happened; the election officials "ducks" and we are still without certified election results. The real story of 1851 is a parody; it was probably was not even an election year except for vigilantes, but we were admitted to the Union by then; somebody got that right thanks to the gold rush! Save some of that gold for electronic counting machines offering a paper trail; the Duck's won't have to take cover from the electorate
112 agree | 114 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Why are all the opensourcers trashing Sec Bowen and Steven Hill? Why is this a zero-sum game to these techkys? It sounds to me like a few folks didn't get their way and want to derail the rest of our atempts to have a IRV system that works.
116 agree | 117 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
No on H said:
I can't believe that anyone is still willing to support the BOS decision to giving ES&S an extentions. Shame on you!
130 agree | 112 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Voter said:
At least when the votes and results are announced, we will know that they are accurate. Much better than getting innacurate or hacked votes immediately. Let Debra Bowen do her job. She's proven time and again that an honest, fair and transparent election is what she's working toward. Supervisors might not like it, other county officials might not like it, but the citizens and voters should tell them to get with the Secretary of State's program.
129 agree | 133 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Can't we have both: a system that is certified and work, which also provides IRV?
138 agree | 144 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
once again, the pack of self righteous "activists" like Steven Hill and the progressives forced on us a failed voting process, and tried to change the rules to benefit their candidates...and it FAILED....and now theyr'e actually lobbying AGAINST FAIR VOTING MACHINES just because it hurts their precious IRV. Newsom is no great mayor but I'm glad he won just so the regressives like Chris Daly will see their stupid ideas stopped with a nice big veto!
169 agree | 148 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It look's like we have a chance to fix our problems this Wednesday when San Francisco finally votes for a new system...anyone want to make odds that our Board of Supervisors will screw this up again?
147 agree | 126 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
What we need is for our Board of Supervisors to stop playing Secretary of State. Can we please let Debra Bowen do her job and give San Francisco a voting system that is certified and works!
162 agree | 165 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This is a real bummer - I resent anyone tampering with my ballot, remarking it to their liking. I have a God-given right not to give three preferences, and nobody has the right to add a third preference on my behalf. This system is pure, unadulterated baloney, if not to say voter fraud. The ballots should be tallied by another machine at City Hall, and only if there is a difference between the precinct's machine and the one at City Hall should there be a visual evaluation of the ballots. This sounds to me to be another encroachment upon our voting rights. And the fact that poll workers are not required to check voter IDs makes it a shameful sham anyway.
154 agree | 173 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Great news, another 4 years of serious hair-product and Newsom-speak. Maybe this election result says more about the current nature of the electorate in San Franciso than the Mayor's effectiveness? Seduction can be an amazing quality.
140 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Why the emphasis on "speed"? Accuracy is what people want.
157 agree | 150 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
To the Examiner Reader who wrote: We need to have more great leaders, like Norton the First, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico. Today we have: Supervisor Chris Daly, Activist for Renters, Protector of Progressives, and Advocate for Justice in the Tenderloin.
157 agree | 140 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The reason why we have no election system in place is because Chris Daly tabled the new vendors’ contract after being heavily lobbied by open source activists. The same activists are supported financially by a company called Open Voting Solutions who have sent several un-solicited bids for a system built in a garage by some open source hobbyists. What we need is a system approved and endorsed by Debra Bowen, not some tech geek’s weekend distraction project.
160 agree | 157 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Asking city departments to met goals. Wow, is the Mayor actually grading this crummy voting system. I thought I lived in a world class city. Maybe I should be asking for a tax refund based on poor performance. I will be waiting for my check.
181 agree | 158 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
examiner critic said:
Good job Bonnie. The chroni-cle sounds like a Newsom sound-bite.
154 agree | 152 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
We need to have more great leaders, like Norton the First, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico.
155 agree | 161 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree