Also: OUSD board members accept our invitation to break bread; Democracy Dollars wasn’t enough for council members; Prostitution has exploded since loitering decriminalized – Letters to the Editor
Whether it's Oakland, BART or EBMUD or SF, virtually all larger local jurisdictions are controlled by their public employees unions. Instead of the bosses selecting their employees, we get the employees selecting their bosses. This is managed by political contributions to candidates. No one has more self-interest than the unionized employees. The payback occurs when the unions and elected officials are negotiating wages, benefits and work rules.
There was an almost successful attempt to correct this problem in 2012. Prop 32 got 44% of the statewide vote although it was massively outspent by the unions. This measure would have prohibited payroll deductions to unions from automatically going to political candidates. Of course union members could individually donate to their favorite candidate, but the massive pipeline of dues to politicians would have been interrupted.
Whether it's BART 's fiscal cliff, or Oakland’s endless financial mess, it won't be fixed until there's a correction to the basic financial structure that prevents local government efficiency and makes every project or service cost more you could imagine. Bring back another try at Prop 32 of 2012.
Thanks Oakland Report. I agree, we need to get rid of Rank Choice Voting. Just creating a new charter without changing both the system of voting and the quality of our leadership will create more problems. Giving more power to a bad mayor and city council will end up being a disaster for Oakland. We need new leadership that can work together. We also need to replace the "police commission" with an advisory board to work with our great police officers. Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026
It would be interesting to see the EVIDENCE whence @Seneca Scott claims -- "Any charter amendment that does not eliminate ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a waste of time. RCV has demonstrably harmed local voting turnout, confidence, etc. Especially in communities of color and the working class."
As yet I have not seen a well-reasoned criticism of ranked-choice voting. The claim that "Any charter amendment that does not eliminate ranked-choice voting is a waste of time" does not rise above the low evidentiary standard of point-and-sputter.
"They both came in second in the popular vote"? -- authoritative citation please. What is the specific mechanism whereby one 'comes in second in the popular vote' but wins the RCV vote?
@circleglider -- what part of this is confusing you? "Authoritative citation please", "What is the specific mechanism whereby one 'comes in second in the popular vote' but wins the RCV vote?"
Whether it's Oakland, BART or EBMUD or SF, virtually all larger local jurisdictions are controlled by their public employees unions. Instead of the bosses selecting their employees, we get the employees selecting their bosses. This is managed by political contributions to candidates. No one has more self-interest than the unionized employees. The payback occurs when the unions and elected officials are negotiating wages, benefits and work rules.
There was an almost successful attempt to correct this problem in 2012. Prop 32 got 44% of the statewide vote although it was massively outspent by the unions. This measure would have prohibited payroll deductions to unions from automatically going to political candidates. Of course union members could individually donate to their favorite candidate, but the massive pipeline of dues to politicians would have been interrupted.
Whether it's BART 's fiscal cliff, or Oakland’s endless financial mess, it won't be fixed until there's a correction to the basic financial structure that prevents local government efficiency and makes every project or service cost more you could imagine. Bring back another try at Prop 32 of 2012.
2012’s Prop 32 wouldn’t even get a third of the vote if it somehow made it back on a statewide ballot today. California’s electorate is hopeless.
Thanks Oakland Report. I agree, we need to get rid of Rank Choice Voting. Just creating a new charter without changing both the system of voting and the quality of our leadership will create more problems. Giving more power to a bad mayor and city council will end up being a disaster for Oakland. We need new leadership that can work together. We also need to replace the "police commission" with an advisory board to work with our great police officers. Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026
Orinda has 93 miles of publicly maintained roads. Oakland has 830 miles.
It would be interesting to see the EVIDENCE whence @Seneca Scott claims -- "Any charter amendment that does not eliminate ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a waste of time. RCV has demonstrably harmed local voting turnout, confidence, etc. Especially in communities of color and the working class."
As yet I have not seen a well-reasoned criticism of ranked-choice voting. The claim that "Any charter amendment that does not eliminate ranked-choice voting is a waste of time" does not rise above the low evidentiary standard of point-and-sputter.
A well-reasoned criticism of RCV would start with Jean Quan and Sheng Thao.
Please provide your reasoning. How would Quan and Thao's election results been different if RCV had not been used?
They both came in second in the popular vote, and would not have become mayor without RCV.
"They both came in second in the popular vote"? -- authoritative citation please. What is the specific mechanism whereby one 'comes in second in the popular vote' but wins the RCV vote?
Comments like this illustrate why the governance of Oakland—and all of California—will remain hopelessly dysfunctional.
@circleglider -- what part of this is confusing you? "Authoritative citation please", "What is the specific mechanism whereby one 'comes in second in the popular vote' but wins the RCV vote?"