 |
| There was an election? Did not realize that. Who won? |
Guess what percentage of L.A.'s registered voters did not bother to vote in yesterday's election? The answer is 88.41%.
Let me put that another way: 1,454,005 of the 1,644,647 people registered to vote in America's second-biggest city simply skipped an election. They did so even though the City is nearly bankrupt, and even though approximately half of them live in districts where they could have replaced current City Council Members.
Every single feckless incumbent was re-elected to office, without even a run-off, by maddeningly small margins.
Councilman LaBonge stayed in office with a margin of just 827 votes. That is, he needed 8,130 votes to win, and he received 8,956.
Councilman Cardenas retained his office with a margin of just 599 votes. He needed 3,411 votes to win; he received 4,009.
Councilman Huizar squeaked by with a margin of 2,051 votes. He needed 7,216 votes to win; he received 9,266.
Councilman Wesson maintained his office by a margin of 2,650 votes. To win, he needed 5,5,562; he got 8,212.
Think about those numbers, would you? In major American city that is failing, and that has 1.6 million registered voters, the career politicians who caused the crash-and-burn are staying in office by margins of 827 votes, 599 votes, and so on, because 1.4 million voters don't even show up.
Plus, only .04% -- less than one half of one percent -- of L.A.'s registered voters realized that the "library" ballot measure was an unjustifiable tax hike: 65,669 people voted against it; 113,350 voted for it; and everyone else stayed home. Hey, do you think the people who voted for it even know that on election day, the City Council diverted nearly $1 billion of revenues to "welfare for the rich" through so-called redevelopment programs?
Do you understand, now, why I will never run for office again in this City? The combination of lazy media and uninformed voters spell doom for America's second-biggest city. And if you think that's hyperbole, I have one word for you: Detroit.
Okay, enough pessimism. Hey, who's running for the 2013 elections?
LA and California are circling the drain. Flee while you can!
ReplyDeleteWalter;
ReplyDeleteMight I suggest that a majority of LA's registered voters don't vote because they are illegally in the country?
Registering to vote is not a prosecutable offense by open borders standards. Actually voting is....not that its' done very often, but that's the threshhold. Registering gives an illegal a document that can lead to services and other benefits. So with LA's notible illegal population, coupled with the effort that the OBL engages in to register voters, it might be understandable as to why the number of non-participants in the elections are so abysmal
Hey Walter. I think if Lindsey Lohan and Charley Sheen had run for council there might have been a bit more voter interest.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the fading lights of Tinsel Town.
I was looking forlorn last night and so my wife asked why and I told her because only 111 people in CD 4 turned out to vote and we re-elected the same idiots that have been destroying this city on top of passing a bunch of bad new ballot initiatives.
ReplyDeleteI gotta say though that, on top of the media malpractice, where was the campaign?? I didn't see any ads on TV or hear them on the radio; I didn't get anything in the mail or flyers on the door. There were no ads on Facebook or Google. And who were these candidates? While abhorant the incumbants are, the people running have to have a story, a philosophy and a plan. O'Grady's office called me at home a few times and I'm like, "what is he going to do about the hostile business climate that has been driving retauranteurs into the food truck business because it takes 12 different offices 3 years to approve all the permits it takes to go into business? What is he going to do to stop threatening cuts to law enforcement everytime the city overspends? What are we doing about the fact that the LAFD does not have the budget to hire any new firefighters? Why are all of the streets torn up and the LADWP, in spite of having hundreds of millions in the bank, can't replace 70 year old pipes that are bursting throughout the San Fernando Valley? I don't want to hear platitudes about--oh we have to fix our schools--if the city is so unworthy to live or work you don't even get to the point of wanting to start and raise a family here. There will be no kids to go to these schools if we don't do something about the unemployment caused by driving businesses and the jobs they create out of town, the crime and the crumbling infrastructure."
"Oh well you can go to Mr. O'Grady's website and send him an e-mail."
Goodbye; these are the things that should have opened the conversation. Yes, it's nice to offer to accept 50% of the normally outrageous salary paid to councilmen but if you're just going to unanimously auto-vote for crap like turning lanes for cars into dedicated bike lanes in the city with the world's worst traffic anyway, what do I care how little you get paid?
I think the problem with this city is simple. People who come here don't plan to stay; they will work here for a little while and then move on. The people from here generally tend to leave after a while and all the really wealthy people still living here don't have a reason to care about most of these problems. And if it ever gets too bad, they're in a position to just leave. It's the rest of us who either can't or don't want to that has to deal with the status quo. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of us to overturn this soggy matress called apathy and really effect reform in Los Angeles city government.
Dairenn -- You misread the table. That was 111 precincts, not people. Keep scrolling down. Thousands voted, but only a few thousand.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Campaigns like the one you described take MONEY, lots of MONEY. That's why we need the media to show people how corrupt City Hall is. Otherwise, why contribute to anyone's campaign?
ReplyDeleteIn the Times, the municipal elections for the City of Bell got more coverage and was on the front page. It's still there last I checked today.
ReplyDeleteVoter turnout below 20% of registered voters for L.A. Municipal elections are going to be the norm unless something drastic happens or something is done to boost voter turnout. "I don't care" and "don't bother me" appears to be the prevailing sentiments.
The last municipal election in Chicago (the country's third city) had a voter turnout of 40% that the Times declared "low" (see link).
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-chicago-mayoral-election-20110222,0,5940809,full.story
Too bad the Times doesn't cover elections in Los Angeles like they do in other cities.
Aren't you glad you know why Carmen Gaga is the City Attorney by that name? Scroll down a few stories below to see his $1,000 tix from our good buddies AEG.
ReplyDeleteWe have the results, FINAL FOR THE 2011 ELECTION: CORRUPTION: 92% YES, 100% PRECINCTS REPORTING. 5% No, 4% no opinion.
WINNER!
On to the next election.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting factoid for whoever wants to run for Mayor of Los Angeles or any other L.A. municipal office in the next municipal election in 2013 to gapple with.
L.A. City Voter turnout was 11.59% on 3/8/11.
The L.A. City unemployment rate was 14.00% in 12/10 and undoubtably is still at a double digit percentage higher than the percentage of registered L.A. voters that turned out for the 3/8/11 L.A. Municipal election.
190,642 is the number of ballots that were cast in the 3/8/2011 Los Angeles City Election.
268,642 is the number of unemployed workers resident in the City of Los Angeles in December, 2010 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
More people in L.A. are out of a job than voted in the civic election.
The unemployment rate for the City of Los Angeles will certainly still be in double digits in March, 2013 for the next mayoral election.
The election turnout may be in the single digits or less.
Quite possibly, the City will not be able to hold an election because it will be broke and unable to pay for one.
Look on the bright side. About 191,000 people did vote (out of 1.6 million).
ReplyDeleteAll you have to do is reach those 190,000.
What's you take on Parks' win? Is that a good thing or a don't-care? There have been radio ads on KFI endorsing the union-backed candidate.
One of the Anonymous points out that a certain TV-star/trainwreck got far more coverage than the election.
One possible explanation is that They (whoever They are) didn't particularly want the election publicized.
Even today's LA Times had only a small note on the election.
Despite the outcome, we all owe a debt of gratitude to all of those who put their lives on hold (including some of their financial assets, earning power, resources, and time), stepped up to the plate, and ran against entrenched incumbents – They were awesome! There is no Democracy when seats go unchallenged.
ReplyDeleteAnd for those who point to unprofessional campaigns, lack of money, etc, I would just point to the Martinez – Huizar race. Rudy Martinez became the only “real contender” in the press and the only real hope to shake things up at City Hall.
Money is the first thing that gets everyone’s attention and Martinez had it. He also had name recognition because of “flip this house.” Then there was his very hi-tech approach and professionally run campaign as reported in the Weekly. I was convinced this race was going to be tight.
Even the negative issue of Martinez using a dead police officer’s badge was offset with Michael Trujillo “bullet in the head – I got religion” email.
But then, look at the outcome – Huizar (incumbent) 64%
Now go to District 4.
The incumbent was thought to be a tough nut to crack. Overall he was seen as very popular and non-controversial. He would actually personally call constituents at home (and I’m not talking those who make campaign donations).
On the negative side, Labonge did have to be persuaded by great numbers to change his position on Brown Derby/Los Feliz and Historical Monument designation for Griffith Park – But he did respond to the will of the people, despite the fact that his constituents should have to do heavy lifting to persuade him.
Now look at the outcome – Labonge (incumbent) – 55%
What?
None of the conventional wisdom holds up here, but perhaps you can explain it.
At least one reporter called Labonge’s victory as a trouncing.
I would take issue with that. Labonge and Huizar’s margins and percentages should have been “flipped” (pun intended)
A "trouncing?" No. Winning by a margin of 827 votes is not a "trouncing." It is making it by the skin of your teeth.
ReplyDeleteGeez, come to think of it, that's a weird expression. Skin. . . teeth?
Yes, this is your short-attention-span website.