Tag Archives: alix rosenthal

Art & Politics: April 6!

Friends!

The extraordinary Marco Cochrane will be sculpting me (yes, ME!) at an event on April 6.  The event is a joint fundraiser for my campaign and for Marco’s next  monumental sculpture called Truth Is Beauty.

The event is going to be  truly a unique experience, featuring a fascinating mix of artists, politicians, performers, and YOU. I can’t WAIT to see what unfolds.

Art & Politics: A Fundraiser for Truth is Beauty and Alix Rosenthal
Friday, April 6, 7pm-12am
Project One
251 Rhode Island Street, San Francisco

Facebook invite here: https://www.facebook.com/events/324292140951586/

Go here to purchase advance tickets: http://artandpolitics.eventbrite.com/

The night will feature live sculpting by Marco Cochrane of model Alix Rosenthal. And booty shaking courtesy of:

Zach Moore (Space Cowboys)
Tamo (Space Cowboys)
JoeJoe (Brass Tax & Bliss Dance Crew)
Ding Dong (Brass Tax)

Buy tickets here: http://artandpolitics.eventbrite.com/

For more info on Marco and his sculptures:
visit: http://www.blissdance.us/

Please come!

Thank You, Milk Club and Assembly Member Tom Ammiano!

Today I am honored to be endorsed by the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club and Assembly Member Tom Ammiano.

The Milk Club is one of the biggest and most important democratic clubs in town, named after civil rights leader Harvey Milk, who became the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978.  This was the first democratic club I joined when I became involved in politics in San Francisco, and I consider it one of my political home bases.  I am grateful to the club membership for voting to endorse me last night.

Assembly Member Tom Ammiano (A.D. 13) is a hero of mine, a public servant for over three decades, a friend of Harvey Milk’s, and a champion of civil rights, public education, health care and marijuana policy reform.  His legislative accomplishments are too many to list here! I am proud to count him as an endorser.

Why Your Vote Will Count Even More in June

The upcoming election on June 5 *might just be*
the lowest turnout election in San Francisco history. Why?

Because the only things on the San Francisco ballot are a few sure things, a small number of ballot measures, and the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC).

The sure things include the Democratic Party nominations of President Obama, once-and-future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Assembly member Tom Ammiano (Go Tom!), and many other uncontested races. (Yawn)

The two San Francisco measures probably won’t energize voters. One could change the way the City’s waste management contract is awarded, and one is a policy statement regarding the funding of Coit Tower. Uh huh. We’re not talking about marriage equality or the right to choose, which are the kind of issues that get San Franciscans all riled up.

There are 6 statewide ballot measures, some of which seem really interesting to government nerds like me, such as Governor Brown’s tax measure (good), a measure that fiddles with term limits (good), and the so-called “Paycheck Protection Act,” which is a direct attack on public employee unions (very, very bad). I am hoping that these measures draw people out to vote, but I am not optimistic.

So this is where you come in.  The turnout is going to be so low, that a handful of votes can actually determine the outcome of this election! It means that your vote will actually mean a whole lot to those of us who are running campaigns. How exciting for you!

I hope to see you at the polls.

p.s. Not sure if you’re registered? Check here. Want to re-register as a Democrat so you can vote for me? Go here. Thank you!

SF Democratic Party to Consider Citizens United Resolution

Today is the second anniversary of the historic Citizens United decision by the United States Supreme Court. That decision granted corporations unprecedented influence in democratic elections while permitting them to hide their involvement, thereby threatening the voices of the electorate and the very foundation of democracy.

Members of both houses of Congress have introduced amendments to the United States Constitution that would overturn the decision in Citizens United, and limit corporate influence over federal, state and local elections.  A movement is building. More than 100 Occupy protests took place yesterday in opposition to the decision. Dozens of jurisdictions and party organizations nationwide have begun to call for this appalling decision to be overturned and for the abolition of corporate personhood.

I find it outrageous that corporations have been given First Amendment rights, but not the obligations of a civil society. Until we can draft a corporation into the military, or charge it with murder, it should not be afforded the rights of persons under the constitution.

I have written the following resolution for consideration by the San Francisco Democratic Party, to be considered at its meeting this afternoon:

RESOLUTION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO DEMOCRATIC PARTY DECLARING ITS OPPOSITION TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION AND SUPPORTING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED

WHEREAS, free and fair elections are essential to democracy and effective self-governance; and

WHEREAS, in Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission, the United States Supreme Court rolled back federal restrictions on corporate spending in the electoral process, allowing unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection and policy decisions; and

WHEREAS, the Citizens United decision granted corporations unprecedented influence in democratic elections while permitting them to hide their involvement, thereby threatening the voices of the electorate and the foundation of democracy; and

WHEREAS, the Citizens United decision may supersede state and local efforts to regulate corporate activity in their campaign finance laws; and

WHEREAS, corporations have used the “rights” bestowed upon them by the courts to overturn democratically enacted laws that were passed at municipal, state and federal levels to curb corporate abuse, thereby impairing local governments’ ability to protect their citizens against corporate harms to the environment, to health, to workers, to independent businesses, to local and regional economies; and

WHEREAS, members of both houses of the United States Congress have introduced proposed amendments to the United States Constitution that would overturn the decision in Citizens United, and limit corporate influence over federal, state and local elections; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: that the San Francisco Democratic Party hereby declares its opposition to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the San Francisco Democratic Party calls on Congress to approve an amendment to the United States Constitution that would overturn the decision in Citizens United, limit corporate influence over federal, state and local elections, and abolish corporate personhood; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the San Francisco Democratic Party calls on other communities and jurisdictions to join in this action by passing similar resolutions.

UPDATE as of 6pm, January 21: The San Francisco Democratic Party approved the resolution at its meeting this afternoon and forwarded it to the state party for its consideration.

How Avalos Can Beat Lee in the IRV Tabulation

On election night in San Francisco, Ed Lee ended up with 31% of the first-choice votes. John Avalos had 19%, and Dennis Herrera had 11%.  The remaining 39% of the votes were split up among the rest of em.  Here are the preliminary results.

Avalos has a shot to beat Lee in the IRV tabulation, but just barely. The only way he wins is if the second and third choice votes of all the other candidates transfer at a rate of at least 3-to-1 Avalos over Lee. I think this is unlikely because there were so many other qualified candidates in the race, and because Ed Lee is generally considered a competent Mayor. Very few people hate him, he got a lot of second- and third-choice votes.

In the Oakland Mayor’s race last year, the results were surprisingly similar on Election Night. Don Perata ended the first-choice tabulation with a commanding 11-point lead over Jean Quan. But when third-place finisher Rebecca Kaplan was eliminated and her votes transferred over, an unprecedented two-thirds of them went with Quan, sending Quan across the finish line. This happened because Quan and Kaplan were the only credible candidates in the race other than Perata, and because they ran a concerted IRV strategy, convincing the voters to rank each other second. Moreover, Perata was a polarizing figure – it was an “Anybody but Perata” strategy.

The same doesn’t hold true here. I don’t think Avalos and Herrera ran an IRV strategy together, and there were loads of other credible candidates in the race who will eat up each other’s second- and third-choice votes. Ed Lee himself will get a lot of those second- and third-choice votes. Because he’s no Don Perata.

AND – a lot of ballots are going to be exhausted. Which will be good for Lee. As ballots get exhausted –  because voters bullet-voted (i.e. voting for only one candidate), or because all three of their choices are eliminated – the total vote count goes down. As the total vote count goes down, the percentage of the total vote count for a candidate goes up, inching Lee up towards the goal of obtaining 50% of the total vote count. And that’s where he wins.

And so a ballot that includes votes for only candidates OTHER THAN Avalos or Lee… is ultimately a vote for Lee.

There were a lot of candidates in the race, and so a high percentage of ballots are going to be exhausted early. Because I didn’t see many IRV strategies out there, I’m guessing a lot of voters bullet-voted.  It’s all going to come down to one question: Who did the losing candidates’ voters choose as their second- and third-choice votes, if anyone?

The people who picked Ting, Dufty, Rees, Hall, and Alioto-Pier are more likely to give Lee their second choice votes based on their shared politics. That’s about 20,000 votes, not counting exhausted ballots.

The Baum and Herrera voters are more likely to have picked Avalos as their second or third, and that’s about 17,000 votes, not counting exhausted ballots.

Adachi voters? Forget about it. His votes will transfer to other Asian candidates, some conservative candidates, some to progressives. He’s the wild card. And that’s 9000 votes.

The Chiu and Yee voters are going to be squirrely.  Yee and Chiu worked hard to defeat Lee, and their voters are more progressive than Lee’s. Yet Chinese-American voters tend to be loyal to Asian candidates, and these seconds and thirds are more likely to go with Lee over Avalos. But it’s hard to tell where the Chiu and Yee votes came from just yet. I voted for Chiu, and my second went to Avalos. I also got 1400 hits on my voter guide, so I bet a lot of my friends did the same.

Together, Yee and Chiu had 23,000 votes. Based on the numbers above, these votes have to transfer to Avalos at an extraordinarily high rate (4-to-1?) to put Avalos over the top. And I just don’t see that happening.