Subject: Re: [EL] problem with winning strategy in IRV elections
From: Douglas Johnson
Date: 11/12/2010, 9:17 AM
To: "rick.hasen@lls.edu" <rick.hasen@lls.edu>, 'Election Law' <election-law@mailman.lls.edu>

At the risk of re-opening an earlier discussion that some probably wish stay closed, I would point out that the strategy to "Concentrate on Being the 2nd or 3rd Choice" means "Don't say anything negative or revealing about your opponents" -- and that lack of information for the voters is how a jurisdiction (even one as large as San Francisco) ends up with electing someone who claims to reside in a vacant building and who, upon taking office, immediately starts committing extortion.

 

Voters may say they dislike "negative campaigns," but in this era if the other candidates (and their campaign teams) are not checking up on their opponents, who will?

 

- Doug

 

Douglas Johnson

Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

Claremont McKenna College

o 909-621-8159

m 310-200-2058

douglas.johnson@cmc.edu

www.RoseReport.org

 

 

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 5:47 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 11/12/10

 

"The Winning Strategy in Oakland: Concentrate on Being 2nd or 3rd Choice"

See this report from "The Bay Citizen" (as reprinted in the NY Times Bay area edition). More on the Oakland race from Fairvote (and here).

Posted by Rick Hasen at 05:37 AM