Hot News!
• Freestore Foodbank Battle of the Blogs!
• Cincinnati NAACP President shares update on Cincinnati Retirement Plan
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Dear H. Wilkinson: Did you report the facts? (2007)•Two Republican Views of War (2007)
•Commenting Rules for The Cincinnati Beacon (2007)
•Evidence of Injustice (2007)
•Open Letter to Henry Heimlich about SALF (2006)
•The Mayor’s Recommendations to the Proposed Budget (2006)
•Know Theatre of Cincinnati Offers Alternative Holiday Entertainment with Christmas Yet To Come (2006)
•Stop the Proclamations! (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
We must spread the word about power voting
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
Does the current City Council really have broad support of the majority of Cincinnati citizens? Or is their total re-election merely an example of what goes wrong when voters do not use strategies for making their ballots more powerful? Last night, did City Council really receive a mandate to continue business as usual? Or did the effect of television saturation work as voters just filled ballots with recognizable names? All of our perspectives may be skewed by those with whom we surround ourselves, but I have a hard time believing that the City, as a whole, has been satisfied with the totality of the current council. I think it’s time to spread the word about power voting.
For those not familiar with the theory, here is what could be happening.
First, a voter may only have four or five candidates that she finds particularly voteworthy.
Second, a voter may—for a variety of reasons—find a need to vote for nine total candidates.
Power voting would mean the voter stops after reaching the fourth or fifth candidates, leaving blank the remaining slots. Voting for fewer candidates makes each vote more powerful.
Imagine that a voter has absolutely no real reason to vote for Chris Bortz. If this voter knew about Bortz’s voting record, or the totality of his platform, perhaps voting for him would not be an option. However, this same voter has been inundated by television commercials for the past several weeks. These professionally produced mini-dramas give Bortz a good image.
So, after voting for her favorite four or five candidates, our hypothetical voter is left wondering for whom to cast the other votes. Perhaps Bortz makes the cut for no other reason than name recognition based on big money media buys.
Let’s say our example voter primarily supports Eby, Harper, Winburn, and Fischer. Now, feeling a need to round out the ballot, our voter may also fill in the square next to Bortz’s name. Consider, then, another kind of voter—one primarly casting a ballot for Harris, Garry, and Jeffre. This person might also fill the square for Bortz.
As one can see, each of these voters are not alike—but while their primary candidates received one vote, Bortz received both votes. You can see how quickly this might add up in Bortz’s favor.
With power voting, however, Bortz would have received none.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
07 Nov 2007 at 07:50 am | #
That’s why I never vote for more than 3.
But I think more often people fill up their ballot with incumbents that they would rather see on council. Ie...I’ll use one of my extra votes for Bortz because I don’t like Berding or visa versa.
However the tactic you propose would probably only change the last or the last two seats on council.
07 Nov 2007 at 08:51 am | #
Power voting may also be seen as the voluntary practice called Bullet Voting which I’ve known about since the 80’s in Cincinnati. Vote only for your favorite (it used to be for the mayor in Cincinnati) and then vote only for the favorites you think have the slimmest chance of getting on. I would guess most Republicans usually only vote for 3 or 4 candidates.
07 Nov 2007 at 10:49 am | #
There was a good list of candidates this year. I had no trouble finding 9 to vote for.
The problem was identifying what they stood for.
07 Nov 2007 at 12:58 pm | #
I knew it. You won’t accept your loss with grace and dignity, will you? Big fucking surprise. I knew that you would post some diatribe about the election being stolen, unfair, invalid, etc and sure enough here it is.
The arrogance of your post is galling. You are actually saying that the people of Cincinnati didn’t know what they were doing when they voted, they didn’t understand the candidates and issues, and they didn’t mean to vote for Berding, Bortz & Co. Why? Because you don’t like the results of the election. You know what’s best for our fair City, and you know who best the people should have vote for, and you’re pissed that the majority didn’t vote as you wanted them to. You sound like Rumsfeld saying that the American People just don’t understand the Iraq war, and that’s why they are against it.
The People of Cincinnati have spoken Jason, they are largely happy with the direction the City is headed and they don’t agree with you, Patton or Jeffre about Fountain Square, 3CDC, downtown development, The Banks, the nuisance ordinance, etc etc etc.
Get over it, your boys lost and Messers Berding, Bortz & co won.
Power to the People!
Power to the People!!
07 Nov 2007 at 01:32 pm | #
Dean:
Play with the numbers from the Board of Elections and you’ll see that Cincinnati is already “Power Voting” (is this a real thing or are you making it up?)
The number of people who cast ballots in the City Precincts yesterday was 195,422. The total number of votes cast for all City Council candidates was 416,719. Basic math tells you that there were a average of 2.13 City Council votes for each ballot. Some people may be only Issues voters and others may be casting 9 votes. But in general, this indicates that people are only voting for people that they like, and that most people don’t like very many members of Council. (Personally I voted for 8 and picked among the parties). If you take the top winner, Cranley and divide his number of votes (32,663) by the total number of ballots then you get 16.7 %. That is the number of people who voted for Cranley, which is actually pretty low when you think about it. Less than 20 % voted for the most popular guy.
Now I realize that you are trying to cover up the fact that your nemesis Jeff Berding got 3.2 times the number of votes that Justin did (22,906 vs 7,065) and 7.6 times the number of votes that MEP did (22,906 vs 3,025). Many Democrats like myself and many more people in the City agree with what Jeff Berding is doing on Council and gave him another two years.
And many more said no to Justin and MEP- only 3.6 % of the people who took a ballot yesterday voted for Justin (1.5 % for MEP) and wouldn’t even give him a 9th place even if they were feeling generous.
07 Nov 2007 at 03:53 pm | #
http://www.powrpac.org
7 for 9!!!
That’s power voting!!
07 Nov 2007 at 06:12 pm | #
Nukegal put the Jeffre situation in honest and statistical perspective.
In my words: please go away, Justin. Even the humor factor of your political futility has waned.
Finally, SMLP is sure to take undo credit for Issue 27’s denial. Will he also take credit for the 13 percent of African American voters in Cincy casting ballots?
07 Nov 2007 at 06:23 pm | #
You need to take off your uniform.
07 Nov 2007 at 06:35 pm | #
Nukegal,
195,422 was the total number of Hamilton County Voters who voted. 59,246 was the number who voted in the city.
I was confused at first looking at the BOE results on page 31 of this document. The 195 is on all the documents. You have to look in the box on the bottom of the page to see the 59,246 number.
That amounts to a little over 7 picks per voter...which is more consistent with the majority of people voting for all 9 or at least voting along a party ticket.
07 Nov 2007 at 06:52 pm | #
I’ve done Bullet Voting for years in the Council races. Generally 4, no more than 5 get my vote.
Along the lines of Nukegal, you, Jeffre & MEP need to look at the final results. You’ll plainly see the votes fall off dramatically after about candidate 15. I’ve only seen the semi-final results, but the way they were trickling in last evening, more & more voters have utilized the choice of Bullet Voting to ensure their particular candidate gets the votes that count.
It’s too bad that you’re sore & out of sorts that your faves - Jeffre & MEP barely registered on the radar screen. It’s clear they weren’t addressing the topics that matter most to the die hard voters.
Like the Council choices or not, the voters have spoken loud & clear. Those who vote are the ones who make the decision who will represent them & everyone else. Jeffre & MEP weren’t interested in my vote because they didn’t form anything solid that would address the matters that are of concern to me, so, they didn’t get my vote. It’s that simple.
07 Nov 2007 at 07:00 pm | #
Jones, grow up. These guys have big money friends who given large chunks of money in donation blocks. There is a relatively small number of people giving lots of money to these corporate politicians, and they influence elections more than anyone.
Check the donation lists.
The incumbents are not collecting huge numbers of small donations.
Funnelcake, I can’t quite figure out how to read that document. How many vote were cast for council candidates?
07 Nov 2007 at 07:02 pm | #
It looks like there were 59,246 votes cast for City Council. Five percent of that number would be less than three thousand.
If so, Justin Jeffre just got the Green Party recognized as a political party by the City of Cincinnati, and MEP got the Libertarians through.
Is that right?
07 Nov 2007 at 07:04 pm | #
Also, that means Justin Jeffre got a vote on over 10% of the ballots cast, right?
07 Nov 2007 at 07:23 pm | #
Dean, you need to get a grip. Donations, large or small, didn’t influence my decisions. They never do.
I vote solely on who best provides solutions or ideas to the issues that are of paramount concern to me. That’s all, nothing else. If they can’t provide what I need to make my choices, then they don’t get my vote. Pure, plain & simple.
Your boys didn’t even come close to scratching the surface on the things that matter most to me. Tough cookies. Live with it. And you really need to grow up.
BTW, the voter turnout was down from 2005. As with Paul McGhee, a gentleman who had sense enough to move on, your two boys you were pimping need to move on. We’ve heard enough. Voters black, Hispanic, Asian, white, Native American, etc., have spoken. Grow up & move on.
07 Nov 2007 at 07:27 pm | #
Jones, congratulations on being an informed voter.
But as funnelcake showed above, people DO vote full tickets, like I said in the article.
Justin received 12% of the vote, despite no real fundraising, no real media buys, and so forth.
Now the Green Party and the Libertarian Parties are recongized by the City of Cincinnati as political parties. That is a victory.
And, of course, the jail died. Jeffre and Patton spent more than their share of time at forums talking about the jail instead of their platforms because no one else was able to do it.
Go back to Dem HQ, Jones.
07 Nov 2007 at 07:37 pm | #
If you want to run for City Council and do it seriously- you have to have a deep war chest. And I mean a deep war chest. Plan on the TV commercials every TV break- all over the place-commercial and cable, plan on large mailings, think of P&G type brand marketing. IT is the only way to break in and do it.
You can’t do it with a small budget at all. Those days are over. Walking the streets and shaking hands are over. It takes- slick commercials, it takes- Branding yourself. It really doesn’t matter if you stand for “standing on your head and crapping wooden nickles” it is nothing more than name recognition in this town.
Get your name out there- make people sick of you. Stand up and be seen with the right people at the right time. And buy buy buy TV and newpaper. And you too can be a member of city council.
But a half hearted attempt will just get you what you saw. Yes- Justin- I voted for you- but you have to put the money into it. And I mean money. Hire those goonie that teach you to walk and talk, and will buy your media time. If you really want it- then you have to play their game. This isn’t HS student council. You have to play their game- and play it well. And if it means hiring 12 “mothers” to stand around the polls saying please vote for my son- then so be it. BRANDING of a candidate. But it cost. And it means hiring a media coach- to teach you to address every media question tossed at you. My God gang- just go get the first episodes of West Wing. This is how you win an election. And there are some damn good media coaches in this city- Damn good. But just like I said- you get what you paid for.
07 Nov 2007 at 07:38 pm | #
Why did he have to win this time? Why can’t he run again? Next time, with more time? Remember, he didn’t even decide to collect signatures to get on the ballot until a week or two into August. He was the last to really enter the race, and he had less time than anyone else!
07 Nov 2007 at 08:27 pm | #
Justin can run for city council in 2009. I encourage it for laughs.
I noticed something rather funny about your comments Dean ...
Justin came in 21st place, with just 1.7% of the vote, had “no real fundraising, no real media buys, and so forth.”
To top that off, “Jeffre and Patton spent more than their share of time at forums talking about the jail instead of their platforms.”
So, in sum, Justin DID NOT:
-"really" raise money
-"really" buy media
-"really" talk about his platform
By your own admission, Jeffre did not REALLY run a campaign. Glad you supported a non-existent, or partial campaign.
07 Nov 2007 at 09:09 pm | #
justin didn’t receive 12% of the vote, he received 1.7% of the vote, he was however on a ballot cast for 11.8% of the voters. Monzel, the 9th place finisher was on 37.2% of the ballots cast.
07 Nov 2007 at 09:27 pm | #
You are wrong Dean. By your fuzzy math 39% of people who voted cast a vote for Berding, 43% for Bortz, 44% for Thomas (who spent little money) and 55% voted for Cranley.
Unfortunately for you that is nit the way statistics work. JJ2K got 1.7% of the vote, period.
NEXT!
07 Nov 2007 at 10:29 pm | #
Dean!
Who are you talking to?
You people who are trying to prove your point with statistics have your heads up your asses. Those statistics mentioned prove absolutely nothing. I wish there would be an exit poll, where we would know how the sample subject actually voted and they were asked specifically why they voted for the candidates that they actually voted for. I would doubt that more that ten percent could give answers that were substantiated by facts about the candidate’s positions.
You talk of power voting and bullet voting, but the ones that do that are just a relative few. Until there is proof that the electors even know of or consider such a strategy, you are blowing in the wind. In order for the strategy to be effective , the majority or more need to know it and accept it. Today there is not a consensus anywhere. The majority that voted do not have a clue of the individual platforms, if there are any.
I predicted that we would not see any new faces on council more than a month ago and I was right. The incumbents were stupid to even waste their supporters money even running ads. When you have as many candidates as there were, the outcome was guaranteed. But the incumbents were consistent in that they cared little of their supporters contributions in the same way that they care about the taxpayer’s tax monies.
Until we accept a district voting system, we will continue to see the electors going through the motions of voting and trying to justify in their minds that they have power in their votes. They are generally uninformed so how can they have power? The voters are manipulated by a system to believe that the people are in charge. It is a system that allows the rich and powerful to actually control what happens and the system takes the people’s minds off of what is actually happening. It was the same with Hitler, who was preferred by the likes of Henry Ford, who could continue to exploit while Hitler kept order.
Until the herd sees that it has actually got effective power, the people will continue to go through the motions because they need to believe that they are in charge. It is something like a triumph of imagination over intelligence. If the people can’t believe in a system that they claim to love and respect, then they have to admit that they are stupid. It is a lot like religion.
07 Nov 2007 at 11:03 pm | #
Yeah, Dean, I AM an informed voter. A very informed voter. I don’t vote for any one clown just because you think I & other voters should. And I’m not connected with Dem HQ in anyway. My party affiliation is my business, not yours.
That’s their problem, not mine. That’s another reason both did so poorly in the election. Other people in the running could manage to discuss a wide variety of things that are on the minds of the taxpayer-voter. Cridy! Goofy Brian Crum Garry placed higher than these 2 did.
Oh no. Don’t tell me. This is the voters’ fault, too, right?
Da Bottom Line summed it up accurately. Belching librarymobiles don’t get a person elected. Neither does the cheesy rhetoric I received from the Jeffre campaign office, er, campaign bus, long after, way long after, I sent in my absentee ballot. Backwoods politicking is finished in this town. One can’t send 2 poorly copied pieces of paper to a voter & expect to be taken seriously. Especially on the environmental spiel, when Jeffre was wheeling around in that oil burner. As I mentioned before, those 2 pages & the envelope went in the bag with other papers to the SPCA so the puppies could pee on them. That’s how much I care about abandoned animals, do my very best to protect the environment & dismissed Jeffre.
Yeah, you betcha I’m an informed voter. Too bad your boys weren’t smart enough to study up on Politician 101. Dean, surely you didn’t think your 2 boys were going to finish in the money or even close to it. If you did, you even less savvy than I gave you credit for.
08 Nov 2007 at 01:39 am | #
I moved on Nov. 1 and didn’t get my address changed in time, so I was forced to vote via a provisional ballot. I used the power voting method, but when I asked when the provisional votes would be counted they told me, “not before Nov. 10,” but they did assure me that they would all be counted. So as of this date, all of the votes have not been counted. Vera Z.
08 Nov 2007 at 07:12 am | #
The number of ballots cast is radically smaller than the number of votes for candidates, since each voter can vote for up to 9 candidates.
Due to the high proportion of people who filled their ballots—and did not power vote—certain candidates got lots more votes. However, to see the percentage of ballots that included a candidate, look at their votes (since you cannot vote for the same person twice per ballot), and how many ballots were cast.
In the City of Cincinnati, 59,246 ballots were collected. So, yes, lots of people voted for Cranley. And about 12% (more specificaly 11.9%) included a vote for Jeffre.
More than one out of every ten voted for Jeffre—which is not bad for a first council run, with no fundraising, and having less time to campaign than everyone else.
But more significantly, the Green Party is now recognized as a political party by the City of Cincinnati.
08 Nov 2007 at 08:58 am | #
Bearman:
OOPS! Thanks for the clarification on the Board of Elections page. Should have known there aren’t 195,000 people in the City who would vote in any election, much less a local one. I moved too fast trying to respond to the Dean’s silliness during lunch and don’t bother to read this blog in the evenings.
Dean, I think the point is that Power Voting or bullet can work against the little guys. How many of the 12 percent of the people who cast a vote for Justin gave him a sympathy vote? I mean really, you can vote for 7 adults and 2 wingnuts and still feel like you did something good for the City.
I wonder how many people would have voted for Justin if they could only have one vote or if they stopped at the so called Power Vote point, before the sympathy vote response kicked in. My guess is about the same amount who voted for him in the Mayor’s Primary or about 730.
08 Nov 2007 at 12:29 pm | #
On Friday, October 26 at around 6;00pm, I was driving through Price Hill.... the intersection of Quebec, Glenway, Warsaw & Seton Aves to be exact....
Jeffre had his tenny-boppers on the corners with his campaign signs.....
Two of the signs were being held UPSIDE DOWN !!!
The distress signal proved to be right on mark
09 Nov 2007 at 05:50 am | #
Dean and Justin should have gone inside the Aronoff on Saturday night to get their praise and chant on with the brilliant Sweet Honey instead of accosting people outside. They need some soul soothing.
09 Nov 2007 at 12:53 pm | #
Dean: 59,246 discreet Cincinnatians cast ballots.
Of them 7,065 voted for Jeffre; therefore Jeffre received the votes of 11% of the votes cast by those voting.
Since Brian Griffin is a big asshole: his claim that voting is down 7.23% (+/-) from 2005 is partly true: 7.23% fewer eligible voters cast ballots, but this represents a 20% decrease in turnout.
Finally: somehow 124 people still managed to overvote even though they can clearly count the number of little boxes they filled in. Steve Reece still has something to complain about.
09 Nov 2007 at 09:24 pm | #
What about cumulative voting?
I know, I know, everyone thought Lani Guinier was a commie for suggesting it, but it’s common practice in corporations. In other words, it’s as straight & narrow as P%G.
10 Nov 2007 at 11:44 am | #
Justin,
Think back to your days of when you were trying to get 98 Degrees to compete against BackSteet Boys.
You guys had HOW MANY media consultants out there and HOW MANY people coaching to to walk, talk, interview, dress,how many dance coaches, how long did you practice those moves, how long did you spend practice singing? This is a career just like that was.
This isn’t a HS student council. YOU WANT IT?
Then you have to prepare for it. You have until 09 to do it. Now get off you butt-and stop spending time looking for a cause. Make yourself known as a MAN and not just a Boy Band singer.
Make yourself taken seriously. Raise the money to make the serious commercials, go after them-start with the I was born and raised here and I don’t like what I see when I came home to live and raise a family-I WANT to make a difference- I’m not A BOY BAND SINGER ANYMORE- I stand for what you do.
Hell if you have to turn yourself into a Mary and Marva- hell- do it- we all know them- and we may not agree with them- but they are known- to try to preserve a community- (not the right tactics- but they are trying and get on our nerves!)
If you are serious- then get serious. Get Nick to help fork over the money to help- that is if Jess did get it in the Divorce over Chicken or Tuna! But Raise $250K- get some slick TV commercials, get some nice NP ads, tell people what you want to tell them. You and MEP caused the original down fall of SLY SI here. You have it- now DO IT.
And stop whinning- and get serious. Bring in some Hollywood producers- call in some favors-Yeah tacky as they were- Ghiz ads looked good and wholesome. Do the same-you aren’t 18 anymore.
GET SERIOUS and MAKE A RUN AT IT. You have the time to prepare. NOW DO IT.
10 Nov 2007 at 12:49 pm | #
What is wrong with cumulative voting is, like proportional representation is that it is contrived which means that it will confuse the voters. Anything that confuses the voter is detrimental to the confidence that the citizens must have in the credibility of a voting system.
These gimmicks are based on beliefs of some that are looking for a solution to correct the faults of our system but they really don’t have any facts to back up their thinking. They rely on gut feelings, which a of varying degrees among those that claim to support such a gimmick.
Rather than seeking to solve the underlying problems of a straight forward truly democratic system, they look for gimmicks, which are often designed to give the supporters an edge. This is why there is no support for a more democratic system from the incumbents. The present at-large systems serves well incumbents as has been shown again by the recent election.
To the point that cumulative voting is used in corporations, the citizens only get one share per voter unlike shareholders which have varying amounts of shares. A corporation is not a democracy.
How can we eliminate voter apathy, voter ignorance, voter mistrust, disenfranchisement and high campaign costs? I don’t see where any of these gimmicks serve to eliminate any of these faults.
10 Nov 2007 at 03:47 pm | #
I have no desire to raise $250k to run some slick commercials. I’m not selling soap I’m talking about what I see as being wrong with our struggling community and what we can do to fix it. Those slick commercials turn people off and don’t inform people or make them think.
Some people benefit from a corrupt political system that has an undue influence of big money. They want it to simply be a horse race about polls and name recognition because then we don’t have to discuss what’s really going on.
We shouldn’t reward the corporate media outlets because they are the problem. The corporate controlled media fails to live up to their responsibility to foster or even cover the deep discussion about the issues that our community faces. Instead of telling us where all the candidates stand on the issues and why, the self appointed pooh bah pundits act as gate keepers who give endorsements along with selective and very limited coverage.
Some media outlets (like Channel 12 and Cumulus radio) gave significant amounts of free airtime time to favored candidates while excluding others from the airwaves which are publicly owned. (In my 2005 Mayoral campaign a sales person from Fox 19 said they could have me on their morning show, but they “usually only have people on that do advertising” with them. I didn’t do advertising with them and wasn’t invited on their show.) This kind of bias and political bigotry is unfair and unacceptable.
Our current corrupt campaign finance system is nothing more than an elaborate money laundering and bribery scheme where special interests maintain the status quo by manufacturing the consent of the masses. Corporate media outlets keep elections based on name recognition and shallow PR campaigns from the same corporate propagandists and mind molders that sell you soap and kids Pepto.
Corporate media outlets are supposed to act as the fourth estate and check power. Instead they act as a mega phone for the state and those with money and power. We are living in the best democracy money can buy and that’s why we have some of the lowest voter participation rates in the industrialized world.
That’s why we are continuing our campaign for media reform. Until we have a vibrant and democratic media we won’t have a real democracy of, for and by the people. Corporate controlled media leads to corporate controlled government. A media that represents the interest of the people will lead to a government that serves it’s people. Again, that’s the bottom line!
10 Nov 2007 at 04:16 pm | #
Justin!
Wouldn’t all-district elections go a long way toward reducing local campaign costs?
If you were to work toward that end, you would be reducing the effectiveness of TV ads.
If you don’t agree, tell us why.
10 Nov 2007 at 04:33 pm | #
This council election was FIXED and I hope it will come out before these cheaters are sworn in!!
10 Nov 2007 at 04:48 pm | #
Wow, everyone has so much to say the day(s) after…
As for my original comment on cumulative voting--does anyone know if this has been used in muni government (in the US)? I’d be curious to know. It’s my view that it would help disenfranchised groups (compare bicameralism), but that major constitutional changes would have to be made (and I’m not sure I’d want to go that far to get c.v.). Does this violate one vote/one person, or do we say that you still get 9 votes, you just mete them out however you choose? Something to think about, anyway. If constitutional, I think it would be an interesting experiment, particularly here.
As for district voting—please go live in Chicago for a year or so. I love that town but the politics there are just plain crazy. If you can’t relocate, just listen to an alderman meeting. Plus, as if Cincinnati weren’t Balkanized enough. (This message not brought to you by Mayor Richard M. or J. Daley)
“Power” voting--is that an organized concept? I think everyone knows about this option. Nobody thinks you must vote for 9 people, and if the stats mentioned supra are correct, many don’t. Is your goal to get it into the hearts and minds more firmly, or???
As for the “get off your butt and prove you’re not a boy band dude anymore,” wow! I am so inspired by this (really!) and, being neither a boy nor musically inclined, I was never part of a boy band! Thank you, it made me want to jump up and follow my dreams *right now*...whoever wrote this should be a motivational speaker or a life coach or something!!!
10 Nov 2007 at 04:54 pm | #
How to fix the system? The best bet is to educate voters, ala League of Women Voters.
I worked for years on policy surrounding judicial selection (all kinds, all across the country), and no matter how you sliced it, voter education was the best thing out there.
It’s free, it requires no system-wide changes, and who doesn’t want smarter voters?
Yay, League!
10 Nov 2007 at 05:49 pm | #
Shorter JJ2K:"THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN FROM ME!! WWWWWAAAA!!”
JJ you couldn’t raise $75,000 let alone a quater million. Not unless Nick gave you a handout, err, loan with very favorable terms from his big alimony settlement with Jessica.
10 Nov 2007 at 05:49 pm | #
Most people vote for 9. The stats show that the average number voted for was seven. That’s lots of 9s to keep the average that high, I figure.
10 Nov 2007 at 08:13 pm | #
If that is the best bet, then we have little to look forward to because the LWV is alive and has been around for some time. It obviously is not working or I should say it has not been accepted.
This is not to criticize the LWV in any sense but they may put it out for everyone but it is not being used. One of the reason would be that people think it not worth their while to become educated and this may be because they feel that their efforts would reap insufficient rewards. It just might be their perception that it is not worth the bother. Like it or not, a lot of people think their vote is insignificant.
10 Nov 2007 at 08:16 pm | #
Anne says:
10 Nov 2007 at 04:48 pm | #
As for district voting—please go live in Chicago for a year or so. I love that town but the politics there are just plain crazy. If you can’t relocate, just listen to an alderman meeting. Plus, as if Cincinnati weren’t Balkanized enough. (This message not brought to you by Mayor Richard M. or J. Daley)
Could you be more specific?
10 Nov 2007 at 09:02 pm | #
dieterschmied, I would agree with you. There are some concerns about carving up the districts in a fair way, but I’m not saying you couldn’t. I also support PR.
I think you’re missing my point though. This would help with council, but there are other elections that it wouldn’t help, like higher offices where the undue influence of money gets even worse. I also think money could still play too much of a role with just districts as the only reform.
Congressman Kucinich is the head of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, which has oversight over the FCC.
If the corporate media outlets would live up to their responsibility it would be a moot point.
Crybaby!, I never said this election was stolen, this isn’t about me and if you don’t grow up and join the adult conversation we are having I’ll put you in the time out zone. I won’t allow you to derail the conversation and clog up our bandwith.
11 Nov 2007 at 01:34 am | #
Justin!
The arbitrary or conspired carving up of districts seems to be the standard argument, but they are already carved by the two political parties. First of all, I am interested in local elections at this time and the larger election can follow. There seems to be a non-written rule that local elections must be patterned after the national method, which is a rather myopic viewpoint.
I have a method that would not “carve” districts but establish districts in a way that no politics can interfere and that each district would contain the same number of voters making each man’s vote equal. It is done using the same type of computer technology that the major parties are presently using to gerrymander and undermine democracy.
As to your concern about media, that may be a big concern at the state and national level, but it doesn’t have to be a concern at the local level. And parts of my method of districting could be applied at the higher levels. The problem seems to be politicians who would rather manipulate the voters rather than be accountable and also politicians that are afraid to think outside the box.
As to your preference for PR, I would like to know your justification of that system.
11 Nov 2007 at 01:03 pm | #
dieterschmied, I never said that local elections need to be patterned after the national method. I think the national method is flawed. I’m simply saying that the biggest solution to our corrupt campaign finance system is to require broadcasters to live up to their responsibilities to serve the public interest.
I’m not completely opposed to districts. I was just acknowledging that there are concerns that need to be addressed. PR could work in conjunction with districts. I’m mostly advocating campaign finance reform, but I think we should have more discussion about changing our system.
Some people have suggested a combination of some at large and some district representatives. I don’t know what the best solution is, but we should continue to discuss it. One thing seems clear and that is there is no accountability or faith in our government.
11 Nov 2007 at 02:45 pm | #
Justin!
I never meant to imply that YOU said anything in particular; I was speaking of the general populace.
A solution might be returning the broadcast airways to the public to some degree. The media claims that they are private businesses and to that point, if accepted, it is their property and government should not tell them what to do.
I have a thought that perhaps sixty days before a general election, the people take back their airwaves every other hour and allow candidates and zealots to have access and thirty days before the election the candidates and zealots shall have complete use of the airwaves until the election. If that is threatened, I think the lobbyists for the media will come up with a solution that might be satisfactory.
In any case, the media should be paying more for the use of the airwaves anyway. And for those in the press there should be more responsibility demanded for quality information. They have had a free ride claiming freedom of the press without showing any responsibility relative to the freedom that they enjoy.
Another avenue that should be explored is wide band internet access as a right of every citizen. Such a right and availability might change the mindset of enough that the media might have to readjust the way that they do business. The internet rules or practices will have to change somewhat as we can’t have it such a jungle that users can’t wade though the fathoms of crap that seems to permeate blogs. The internet is relatively young and Cincinnati should be offering the opportunity for its citizens and the city itself to benefit for its potential today and tomorrow.
Instead of running around and kissing babies, the internet could give the people the power and convenience of hearing what the candidates are really for. There would be nothing like I saw in the last election where one candidate, and possibly more, put out advertising that was slanted to the side of town where it was being distributed. It would also give the people a forum to challenge the candidates where now it is essentially a one-sided conversation.
Yes, PR could work with district but why? The present method allows for a form PR in that the voter could refrain from voting all nine of their ballot chances if they had any discipline. What PR would do is first confuse many and that would be an overwhelming reason not to have it. Next it an effort to manipulate the democratic process in very subtle ways that could actually come back and bite you in the ass. Explaining this subtle manipulation would take way to much time or maybe a book and the changing dynamics at the time would be constantly changing the political environment and what works today might not work tomorrow and for this reason, I don’t agree that there should be any bastardization of a simple straight forward process even though PR might be better at SOME times. I also believe at the local level there should be more involvement of the general public in making decisions and not at the expense that was realized in the recent Jail-tax issue. With the internet, people could actually vote by internet in a more informed mind.
11 Nov 2007 at 11:31 pm | #
I know black people need to power vote. I wanted Nelms for school board, but when I saw he was running with Flannery and Bolton as a team, I voted for all 3. And what happenned? As usual, the white community voted for there’s but not for ours. Flannery gets 30,000 votes, Bolton gets 28,000, and Nelms gets 18,000. Hmmm, wonder how that happenned. Nelms was the ONE that I really wanted to see win! Now how would I have felt after voting for all three, if the other two got their seats and Nelms fell short? Thats it, I’m power voting from here on out, WITHOUT FAIL, no more alliances or deals with white candidates, our community plays by the rules, while the white community votes for its own.
12 Nov 2007 at 12:23 pm | #
Um, pretty sure Lani IS a communist.
FuzzyDice: “As usual, the white community voted for there’s but not for ours.”
You seem to suggest voting full tickets/slates. If so then why don’t Blacks do this to get Black Dems elected to City Council? It’s very dangerous to take such a monolithic mentality toward a People.
Flannery has high name ID; I think people voted for Bolton just so she’ll stop running for any office that’s up for grabs (suggesting there’s still hope for Marilyn Hyland and Greg Harris), and no one knows who Nelms is.
Even the lockstep Republicans can never get a majority of their voters to vote a straight ticket- and you expect cat herd Democrats and Liberals to? Puleeze!
12 Nov 2007 at 01:44 pm | #
A Few things....
The only way to vote in a election such as this is strategically!!!! What it comes down to is that most people are uniformed. So much so, that by talking to people on Election Day I learned that mant people have the idea in their heads that they were REQUIRED to vote for 9 candidates in order for their ballot to be complete and legitimate.
I’m a bit confused by funelcake’s comment up at the top of the thread. Isn’t understanding and believeing in what a candidate stands for the essence of making them a ‘good candidate’. If you had such a difficulty discerning candidates platforms, how could you feasibly find 9 worth voting for?
JJ,JJ,JJ…
We live in a capitalistic society--if you want to play, you are going have to pay for it.
Corrupt?
Absolutely! But you can’t really make much of a difference if you can’t get into office, can you?
Your heart is in the right place, but your strategy, not so much.
12 Nov 2007 at 03:51 pm | #
I agree with Bottom Line. You can run all over the place trying to be seen by people as taking a stance on an issue. But the reality is, unless you do the commercials, the mailings, the newpaper ads, most people in this town won’t have a clue who the hell you are.
You have to play politician, and stop relying on “free” press. It isn’t going to happen unless you are one of the big names and to get the big name, you have to buy it.
Yeah it sucks. Sucks big time. But if you want to make it in with the big boys, you have to do it.
And as far as buying soap, in Cincy that is what made this town- maybe you need a history lesson!
12 Nov 2007 at 04:41 pm | #
Good point Random. If a candidate has any real grassroots support-no matter who the candidate, Jeffre, Patton, Cranley or Windburn-they need to have supporters who are willing to believe in them enough to donate money for their campaign. those donations don’t have to be large, they can be a lot of small donations. As an earlier poster pointed out, there are really only a couple of candidates at the top of the ticket spending big $ on their campaigns. The rest of the pack are competing with each other at fairly low dollar amounts.
The bottom line is that Jeffre and Patton had practically no backers-MEP with 4 contributors and Jeffre with 6. They don’t have any real base of support in the community and never where viable candidates.
12 Nov 2007 at 04:50 pm | #
Oh, please. Not all candidates, like Charlie Winburn, have a huge church from which to get yellow-shirted volunteers.
And these big money candidates have paid staffs doing fundraising. Smaller candidates can’t pay for staffing, so they don’t get the funds.
12 Nov 2007 at 05:39 pm | #
Did Cecil Thomas “have a huge church from which to get yellow-shirted volunteers”? Did he have a paid staff?? Before you say “yes he did!”, please be prepared to back up your statement with a shred of proof.
12 Nov 2007 at 05:45 pm | #
Cecil Thomas was an incumbent.
But the first time around, he had lots of support from the police officers and from Christ Emmanuel—his very large church in Walnut Hills.
From what I understand, however, his church brethren find him really bothersome these days—all ego, little substance.
12 Nov 2007 at 06:10 pm | #
librariangrrl, we don’t really have a free market or true capitalist system. We have corporate welfare and socialism for the rich (you know the favored few). The free market is for the poor. Look at how much of the public’s resources the city and county governments have given away. Then think about the huge handouts from the federal and state governments.
I reject the idea that one can’t make a difference unless you get into office. Haven’t you ever heard of Dr. King, Gandhi, Ceaser Chavez, Rosa Parks or Ralph Nader? There’s plenty more examples of ordinary people doing extraordinary things throughout our history.
random thoughts and ideas, if you think that soap is all that built this town it is you that needs a history lesson. You obviously missed my point. The press isn’t free and neither is free speech. The public owns our airwaves and broadcasters need to live up to their responsibilities to represent the public interest or their licenses should be challenged and revoked. They’ve failed to live up to their responsibilities and are rewarded with huge profits for it. Our community doesn’t have to continue to accept this.
anon, don’t compare big money candidates like Cranley when trying to talk about grass roots campaigns. He gets money from corporations, members of 3CDC and the Lindners. The power of incumbency give him a huge advantage.
Have you ever looked at the campaign finance reports? It’s a small minority that gives the overwhelming majority of the money. Many in this minority don’t even live in our city. 20% of the people give 80% of the big money contributions. They aren’t raising hundreds of thousands of dollars from little old ladies.
dieterschmied, I think the debate between PR and districts is worthy of further discussion. I just don’t have the time or the energy at the moment. I will get a special post going about this discussion and I hope that you will participate.
12 Nov 2007 at 06:17 pm | #
Cecil Thomas had TV commercials. And so did Ghiz, and Roxy, Cranley, and who else????!!! You have to do it to play in the sandbox. Argue all you want. But that is how the game is played. Open your damn eyes boys.
Get involved with a mega church if that is what it takes-take your pick we only have how many or get involved with one of the large mainstream ones. They are always looking for choir members.
Or start small- even a small church-if you like- they all have sister churches.
And then branch out from there if you want to go the church route.
And for supporters-you have to have some $ someplace.
Maybe the last grassroots person to get elected was someone who was mayor of Covington before you were born- Tom Beehan- got elected the first time w/ beer and wine parties that then lead to phone-athons. The year 1972 or 1974?!!!! It isn’t the same world.
12 Nov 2007 at 06:30 pm | #
random thoughts, we’re well aware of how the game is played and it’s the public that continues to lose.
The world is changing and it needs to change. There was a time when people thought you couldn’t force GM to put in seat belts or other basic safety features in their cars and then the world changed rather quickly.
People have the power to change the world, but only when they realize it and act. Another world is possible and necessary.
12 Nov 2007 at 06:45 pm | #
How incredibly arrogant...the public continues to lose? You jackass. The public wins when clowns like you are shouted down.
12 Nov 2007 at 07:01 pm | #
Justin’s showing is not so bad.
I mean, he got over 7,000 votes, and Nick Spencer—when he ran for Council the THIRD time—got just over 10,000.
12 Nov 2007 at 07:17 pm | #
Spencer only ran twice. The first time he ran--in 2003--he got 7,378 votes (without having run for Mayor in 2001). To the best of my knowledge, he’s never had any multi-platinum records, either. The second time he ran--in 2005--he got 9,462. Either way, both Spencer and Jeffre got their asses handed to them. Twice.
12 Nov 2007 at 07:22 pm | #
Anon,
If you need to sell your soul to the Lindner’s and Castellini’s of the world then we will continue to elect self-interested soulless assholes like Bortz and Berding that don’t give a shit about the people. If it is necessary to go, hat in hand, to the massa every two years to stay in office many will not even bother because they have morals and ideals.
12 Nov 2007 at 07:33 pm | #
Perhaps you don’t recognize the game has changed and the overwhelming defeat of the jail is only the beginning. There are people in this community that don’t put self interests first as all the haters on this blog appear to. Hooray for the indepentent media and Cincinnati Beacon for shedding light on this corrupt campaign finance system. The tide is turning, and none too soon.
Once the media filter is exposed we may begin to have some real debate and the decline of our region will change.
12 Nov 2007 at 07:45 pm | #
At least they had the balls to run for office instead of hiding behind their keyboards and wacking off. Cincinnati is the loser, not Jeffre or Spencer or Patton or Pavelish. They all have lives and other interests and will not miss all the negative bullshit spewed by party hacks with reserved barstools.
12 Nov 2007 at 08:02 pm | #
"The game is played”? That’s exactly how you ran your campaign, like it was a game.
Sorry charlie, but you have to have supporters behind you to win, and you didn’t have any and you couldn’t raise any cash. We would have thought that your old buddy Nick would have thrown in a few bucks at least. 500 supporters each giving small donations of $10-50 each would have gained you some money to campaign with. Unfortunately you only had 6 people behind you. Hardly a groundswell of support with whom you are going to change the world.
That’s the real world JJ, deal with it. Indeed, the world is changing, and it’s continuing to say ‘no thanks’ to JJ.
13 Nov 2007 at 12:25 pm | #
Justin,
I know more Cincinnati History than Dan Hurley-Burley and this town is so slow to embrace change that at the rate you are going, to get on City Council it is going to take you 50 years.
Yes- the Jail was voted down- but also how many other levies went flying south in Hamilton-Butler County? That is a tax levy and not a political office.
The media in this town rots and rots big time. Take a look at the Heimlich story that has gotten as far as 20/20 and not even a mention on the local affil here!! That story has legs and keeps going all over the country but not here.
There is freedom of speech- but not freedom of media. IT COST and IT COST all of us dearly. Just take a look at the crap on tv daily. And then the commercials after commercials.
It takes having people with money behind you to get you into office. And you don’t have to sell your soul to Uncle Carl- look at the number of $50 people that could have really made a huge difference in fund raising? Take a look at how Annunciation School was saved last year- they raised over a million dollars. If people are passionate- the money comes.And it doesn’t have to come from outside of Hamilton Country either. And you don’t have to sell your soul.
Yes it would have been great to see some new faces to rattle City Hall- I didn’t vote for one incumbant.
But,look nationally what is happening-if these are the brightest and the best political minds running for President- we are in big trouble- all the way around. It isn’t party specific. And the same for the recently elected council. We are in for the same old crap. And don’t mention Ghandi and Martin Luther King- it was a different time period-when there were different value sets.
13 Nov 2007 at 02:33 pm | #
King and Gandhi were in a different time, but the point is people can create change without ever holding office. Their ideas, tactics and examples are still with us.
anon, I never compared myself to Gandhi and you’re just mad that we beat your jail tax, get over it. It only takes one person to change the world and $25,000 still doesn’t make one competitive in the current corrupt campaign finance system.
13 Nov 2007 at 04:11 pm | #
Look at Cecil Thomas two years ago and this year. This year he barely raised $25,000. Two years ago Thomas won his first term on less than $10,000.
Just because you can’t compete, doesn’t mean nobody can. Did you ever stop to think maybe voters just didn’t want you on council, Justin?
13 Nov 2007 at 05:51 pm | #
"$25,000 still doesn’t make one competitive in the current corrupt campaign finance system.”
Then explain how Thomas won and Fisher & Winburg lost? Windburg raised $160,447 and Fisher raised $164,980, while Thomas raised a modest $23,831. Fisher & Windburg both ran more TV than any other candidates. Winburg is very well known and a multi-term former councilman. Thomas cleaned both of their clocks. With less than $25,000. Go stick that in your pipe and smoke it JJ2K. The people don’t want you JJ2k. Get that through your head.
13 Nov 2007 at 09:59 pm | #
Oh, wait a minute, here. Fuzzy Dice, the last I looked, voters were free to vote their choice. Since when did the rules change that a voter had to select on color?????
And what is this jazz that “our community plays by the rules”??? What does that have do with voters making a free selection on voting in candidates?
Gee, what a town this has become. It’s all about the color. Addressing the concerns of the voters & the platform in which to remedy those concerns isn’t the primary focus. It’s the color. This is truly a pathetic city & it’s only going to get worse.
13 Nov 2007 at 10:54 pm | #
Obsessive anon, Thomas is an incumbent.
Incumbents always have an advantage, duh.
The issue of campaign finance reform isn’t really about me or my campaign. We’re talking about election reforms, not my campaign. If you don’t understand the role of money in our corrupt political system, than you should grow up and try to learn something.
14 Nov 2007 at 12:13 am | #
Obsessive loser, Thomas wasn’t an incumbent in 2005 when he won while spending less than $10,000.
14 Nov 2007 at 01:25 am | #
YOU’RE WRONG JEFFRE. Explain #65 above then? Can you? Will You. Bet you can’t. We’re waiting....
You are making excuses with the tired lame incument argument. The incumbent has a name recognition advantage. Winburn had a far better name advantage, ran massive TV ads and out-spent Thomas 6-1, yet Thomas gave him a pasting. You (allegedly) have great name recognition, yet got pwned.
14 Nov 2007 at 06:39 am | #
Thomas did not win for $10,000.
According to this October, 2005 report, he had raised $20,000
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/gov/2005/10/pepper-becomes-1-million-man.asp
Stop the nonsense.
14 Nov 2007 at 09:55 am | #
Justin,
I think you can win. I believe you can win. You have some damn good ideas. And so does MEP. I’d love to have you shake rattle and roll City Hall. But we have to get you into the race.
That is all I’m trying to do- get you thinking like a slime ball for the 3 months before. That is all.
MEP is the one who I personally believe along with the Beacon started the Jail site story.
Justin- you got people started thinking that there is more to city council than a bunch of old cronies.
You just have to play the damn game to get elected. You don’t have to sell your souls- just play the damn game to get elected. Think of all the $50 donations- and the $100 ones. And think of a nice commercial- you know the people who you can call in some markers to make one for you. Come on the copy is simple as hell- I came home to make a difference. I’ve seen the world, I’ve seen the country, I want to come home and make a difference in the City I LOVE. This is my home too. My Gawd it doesn’t take a rocket scientist. Simple- keep it simple. Stand down at SCPA- and at Mt. Storm. Or at the Park at the End of Ohio St. Easy and cheap.
Just come up with 3 key reasons why you want to be on city council and HAMMER them home. Don’t stop. Keep it simple. And don’t stop. Don’t mesh issues. Keep them simple. And make us sick of you. Go to all of the community forms. Talk about your passion of this city. Talk about touring the country and how you want Cincinnati to be the best again- you have seen the changes and want it back- and know you can. It is easy.
Just do it. You can. And when you get there- rattle them- and don’t stop. But to get there- simple- and hammer them.
MEP- same thing.
You guys can do it. Just keep your principles simple. Don’t make it a Frat party. Make a serious run- a damn serious run- and get Peppe Ramundo to make your suits. Go for it and do it serious. WE BELIEVE- Just do it with class and get serious.
14 Nov 2007 at 10:03 am | #
Not that we needed it, but here’s more proof that Jason has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to politics. It’s not what you raise, moron, it’s what you spend. Not that it matters anyway. 10 or 20, it’s still less than a tenth of your “quarter or a million” threshold. Jason, you don’t need a quarter of a million to run for council. Well, JJ2k and Michael Patton might. I imagine it would take a lot of money to convince people their bad ideas are worth voting for.
14 Nov 2007 at 06:36 pm | #
OK, Let’s say it’s $20,000. Thats 1/6 of what others who lost spent. It’s less than the $25,000 which Justin just said could not win a council race.
Oh yea, AND THOMAS WAS NOT AN INCUMBANT in that race. An incumbant only has 2 advantages-name recognition and they can usually raise more money than a challenger can. Thomas had neither andvantage in either of the races he won. He was toped in money by a factor of 6, outspent & Windburg is better known than Thomas is.
So why did you lose again JJ?