Comment Archives: stories: News: Letters
Re: “Letters for November 31”
Hi Bob -
1. You are assuming that I am assuming. I did not say that the "exhausted ballot" voters would show up at a run-off election. I said, under IRV, they have lost their right to show up in the final round and vote for one of the finalists.
2. That is an interesting statistic. Thanks for sharing. I do not see how that relates to my discussion of the three-choice IRV system. If I did not make myself clear, I was not condemning IRV. I was merely pointing out a short-coming of limiting the choices to three. As a matter of fact, my post pointed out what I believe to be the biggest advantage of IRV -- cost savings.
3. It wasn't exactly crystal clear that the final two would be Quan and Perata. Your article "It’s a Longshot, But Kaplan May Still Have a Chance of Beating Perata" was published AFTER the initial results were in. Were you just messing with our heads? Regardless, had voters been given the opportunity to rank all candidates 1-10, all voters would have had a voice in the final round.
Re: “Letters for November 31”
Lawngun,
That argument is flawed for several reasons:
1. You're assuming that the 11% of voters who did not list Quan or Perata on their ballots would have showed up to vote in a traditional run-off election. But there's no evidence to prove that. Indeed, there's reason to believe that people left Quan and Perata off their ballots for a reason -- they didn't want either one of them to be mayor. And so it seems likely that a significant percentage of these folks wouldn't show up for a runoff election. Moreover, supporters of Rebecca Kaplan and Joe Tuman who showed up to vote because they really wanted their candidate to win may not have come back a second time to choose between Quan and Perata.
2. Far more voters voted for Quan or Perata than voted in total in the last mayoral election. At least 105,769 ballots listed either Quan or Perata in this election. By contrast, only 83,891 total ballots were cast in the 2006 mayor's race. In other words, at least 21,878 more voters had their voices heard in this election than four years ago.
3. Finally, it was more than obvious throughout the election that Quan and Perata were the frontrunners. So any voter who decided to leave either of them off their ballots had to know they were running the risk of not having a say in which one was elected mayor.
Re: “Letters for November 31”
When Oakland voters approved Instant Runoff Voting in 2006, the voted to implement a system of ranking three candidates on each ballot. By limiting the choices to three, more than 1 in 10 voters had no voice in the final round of this mayoral election -- Quan vs. Perata. More than 11% of the voters chose three picks other than the two finalists and their ballots were therefore "exhausted". Though IRV certainly saves money by reducing the number of elections, it does strip a significant number of voters of the right to have a say in the final choice for Mayor, that they would have in a traditional run-off election.
Re: “Letters for November 24”
The letters above regarding the Mehserle verdict show just how callous and uncaring the East Bay Express has come. Can't you see that the letter writers are swimming in white guilt and are therefore more entitled to outrage over the verdict than the black community? They have every right to complain loudly about the treatment of blacks by law enforcement officers -- a greater right than black people themselves! Can't you see this? Why, some of their best friends are black people. Repent EBE!
Re: “Letters for November 17”
Absolutely whole wheat, & the more organic, local & sustainable the better! More earthy, nutty flavor, more nutrition, no chemical fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides being dumped into the earth & water, no respiratory or other health problems for the farmworkers. The pizza-money stays in local communities when restaurants use local, sustainable ingredients, plus using them helps reduce the communitys carbon footprint. The EB's ready & salivating for it-restaurants, bring it!
Re: “Letters for November 17”
Whole wheat all the way! Whole wheat! whole wheat! Am I making myself clear? More vitamins, more flavor, more phytochemicals (whatever they are, but I understand they are better for you than "additives") and more fiber; also fewer calories (due to the presence of bran, the wheat hull).
Re: “Letters for November 17”
Oops -- I meant to write: "our four boys prefer whole wheat over white crusts too!" Carl
Re: “Letters for November 17”
I'm responding to the What about the Crust? letter. My preference is for whole wheat. I quit eating white flour a while ago and thus haven't eaten pizza at a restaurant since. My wife made pizza with a whole wheat crust and to our surprise, our four boys prefer it in white crusts too! It's an idea whose time has come and some entrepreneur will benefit, along with all the people who give it a try. Thanks, Carl Ferre and family
Re: “Letters for November 17”
I prefer wheat crust for pizza's. We usually make our own with Trader Joe's homemade dough because whole wheat is hard to find. It's also great to see more restaurants serving pizza with a cheese alternative such as soy. Lane Splitters, Bobby G's and Amici's come to mind. Is this where I am supposed to post this?
Re: “Letters for the Week of November 10”
" ask John Burris about his experiences suing the city of Oakland et al"
Speaking of ambulance chasers, I wouldn’t ask Burris a thing. He’s the biggest ambulance chaser in the east bay. He just happens to masquerade as the poor peoples savior with promises of a lotto payday . He’s gotten very rich in the process.
Re: “Letters for November 3”
Re Randy Shaw's latest whining about SEIU UHW and Jay Youngdahl's alleged "mischaracterization" of Shaw's argument:
UHW merely said that the raises it bargained for would be in jeopardy if Kaiser workers voted in NUHW. The small group of Kaiser workers that voted in NUHW have now missed two raises. The NLRB's finding has had no effect so far, and will not unless a trial judge, and judges at every level of appeal open to Kaiser, issue decisions ordering Kaiser to pay out the raises. That sure sounds like those raises were indeed put in jeopardy, for a very long time to come, if not permanently.
The much larger group of Kaiser workers that recently chose UHW over NUHW understood that the only way to guarantee that bargained-for raises would actually be paid as scheduled was to stick with the union that bargained for them, UHW. NUHW (and its media booster, Shaw) found THAT to be an "inconvenient truth". An honest explanation of the situation? "Well, the law seems to indicate that the employer is obligated to pay out raises bargained for by UHW even if the workers switch unions, but it might take a long court battle to get there." That is what UHW told them. NUHW and Shaw, on the other hand, pretended that paying out the raises would just happen automatically, and failed to mention the frequency with which employers exercise their right to challenge their legal obligations in court.
Kaiser workers saw the real-life truth. They voted accordingly. Shaw and the rest of the "ingrown left" (Mr. Youngdahl's appropriate characterization) should respect the choice (and intelligence) of real-life workers and quit telling themselves and each other that the choice was based upon SEIU lies.
Re: “Letters for November 3”
More importantly, everyone who isn't Catholic or stupid knows the Catholic Church is a cult.
Re: “Letters for November 3”
OK, workability is a word. Victimy is not.
Re: “Letters for October 6”
I grew up in NYC in the midst and height of organized crime extortion. I'd have to say those thugs had more heart and class than these Alameda crooks at city hall. Maybe they can learn a thing or two from the classic old-timers.
Re: “My Worst-Ever New Year's Eve”
Wow. Those are some terrible experiences. If you'd like to share more or read more stories like these about people's worst ever dates, worst ever bosses, worst ever decisions, and more check out www.my-worst-ever.com. See how your worst experiences rate!
Re: “Letters for September 29”
Nice job Wolfgang ...
Che’s “CRIMES” were:
~ Overthrowing a brutal U$ backed dictator allied with the Mafia (Batista)
~ Stopping American companies from owning 70 % of the arable land in Cuba
~ Teaching peasants to read, by bringing the Cuban literacy rate from 60 to 97 %
~ Having the 200 or so War Criminals who killed 20,000 Cubans for Batista shot against a wall
~ Speaking out against South African Apartheid to the UN in 1964
~ Fighting white mercenaries in the African Congo with an all black army
~ Speaking out against US and eventually USSR Imperialism while demanding that the poor of the world be allowed to live a life of dignity
Re: “Letters for September 29”
"Che’s life is an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom, we will always honor his memory." — Nelson Mandela
Re: “Letters for September 29”
I can see the Miami gusanos have crawled out of their feces.
Re: “Letters for September 29”
Wolfgang Troullier you are amazingly ignorant about the life and times of che guevara. He was nothing less than a serial killer. He killed Cuban patriots for fun. There is no point in trying to enlighten you and your neo-marxist bizzaro world view. I suggest you get employed as a crash test dummy, you seem so very qualified for the job. Victor (Ken) Hadaway from Oakland, California.
Re: “Letters for November 31”
I left both Quan and Perata off my ballot but I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I would have shown up for a runoff and was very pissed off that I didn't have a say in a runoff. Who knew, with absolute certainty, beforehand that we would be forced to choose between these two in a runoff?
I find this logic very flawed again. You write, "There's no evidence" to prove that people who left Quan and Perata off their ballots would have shown up in a runoff. So what? We don't need to prove that. What needs to be proven for your argument to make sense is the contrary - that we would NOT have shown up. You haven't shown any evidence of that and yet you confidently claim, "it seems likely that a significant percentage of these folks [we who left Quan and Perata off our ballots] wouldn't show up for a runoff election."
What significant percentage might that be? Because it doesn't include me or anyone I know.
We would have shown up to vote for the lesser of the two evils once we knew who they were.