Wow, true sign that something needs to change in our voting system. People don't take the problems we have seriously. This is also a result of no competent candidate for mayor, so voters were complacent. Jerry and Newman (Steve) couldn't attract ants to a picnic.

Posted by Joe F. | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 1:06 pm

When the only real alternatives were Sanders and Francis, it's no wonder people declined to participate. It was pretty depressing filling in the box for the dread head knowing that he had no chance at all.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 2:44 pm

Be real. Voting is very easy. People take more trouble to rent a Netflix film than they take to vote. People are lazy and indifferent, and nothing about the voting system will change that. If you didn't vote, don't whine and complain about the results....you now have the City government you deserve. And I hope it is the kind you deserve for being indifferent and not thinking through what the results of not voting are. (I am glad the dynamic duo of twin councilmembers are out of the City Attorney's race...they'll be back for a shot to be mayor, I'm sure, but at least I can sleep well tonight on one topic).

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 2:59 pm

It's frustrating that we live in such a rare country that guarantees us the right to make a difference at the polls, but so few exercise that right. It's sad. Such a price has been and will be paid for that right, but around 80 percent of the people are too apathetic and unappreciative to turn off the tube long enough to even fill out a mail-in ballot. Fewer than 20% decide for all of us. At least I know they are the ones that do care. There's always the adage: You have no right to complain if you didn't vote. Aaargh! Well, the good news is that we'll see a better turnout in November. Everyone VOTE!!

Posted by Captain T | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 3:23 pm

The point is, though I didn't make it, is that there was more than a mayor's race going on. I didn't vote for either Sanders or Francis, but there were other items on the ballot important to me.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 4:05 pm

Sad commentary when so few people take an interest in their future. Thinking off the top of my head. Would it not be interesting to identify how many of those who are regulars at City Council Meetings complaining about everything under the sun actually voted? Life experience tells me those who complain the loudest and most often are also those who find every excuse in the book and then some to explain away their not voting or getting involved. Bring back mandatory service to our country (red cross, job corps, coast guard and other similar service orgs) at Graduation from High School or age 19, which ever comes first. Take responsibility and interest in ones own future. Too much to ask? I'm sure I will hear why we shouldn't. But its just me thinking out loud.

Posted by Steve McMillan | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 4:44 pm

Well, the simple truth is that because there were two primaries, voter turnout was low. This is the first time we had a February election for President and ONE proposition to end term limits in the State (thanks to people like Fabian Nunez), one in June for every other seat in the primary, and the last one in the November runoff. Low voter turnout and candidate competency in this June election is mutually exclusive. Either the average voter doesn't care at all about elections or more possibly, because participation in municipal and state elections are closely bound to presidential and national elections.

Posted by Beamnn | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 6:41 pm

There wasn't a presidential race on the ballot to draw voters to the polls because your gov., in all his infinite wisdom, decided californians should pay for a wholly separate presidential election back in feb. nothing like spluging on an unnecessary extra election when your state doesn't have two cents to rub together. you can put a price on making ca "matter" more the nation's presidential stage. broke! stupid. stupid. stupid.

Posted by fruitsandnuts | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 7:16 pm

Throw your usual array of "elitist" epithets at me. I honestly could NOT care less (notice the correct use of that phrase -- it even serves to illustrate the point I am going to make). If people, i.e., a vast majority of the new class of humans being churned out into society, the result of modern education, if those people don't know enough, if they don't care enough, or if they don't even have a concept of WHAT a mayor is, let alone who's running for mayor, then sorry, but I would just as soon they remain home. Better to have them sit at home on their keesters, swilling beer, cheering on the Chargers, than mindlessly putting X's into little boxes. At least be somewhat informed before going to the polls. As to "NOT caring less"? It is a negative -- sadly, even college graduates can't understand that nowadays.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 7:43 pm

Well, the ones that did vote are the ones that are informed. If someone does not want to exercise their right to vote, then they are not really the kind of person we WANT voting. The people who post here know the issues and are the types of people we NEED to vote.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 8:09 pm

Thank you Fabian Nunez (former Speaker of the Assembly) and Don Perata (Pro tem of the Senate.) They wanted to separate the Prez primary from the state primary so that they would have a shot at getting out from under term limits. The unintended consequence, with a little help from Gary Schons: 4 more years of Jerry Sanders and Fred Sainz and their Charlie McCarthy act. BTW: whither Lorena Gonzalez and Evan McLaughlin? Talk about a tough night. They dumped a boat load of cash into Peters effort and he got creamed. One has to wonder if labor's cash and foot soldiers could have been better spent in the council races or in the general after the dust settled? And the pitiful George George effort -- what precisely did that do for the cause of working people?

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 8:40 pm

At least Peters got slapped shut. His rude self can march into obscurity for a while and we are all better off.

Posted by Embarrassed to live here | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 9:21 pm

I live outside the City limits. I did not vote. There was hardly anything on my ballot. It didn't move me. I usually vote in every election but not this time. I could have voted for a representative in the County Board of Supervisors I guess but I hear so little about any issues out here in the County that it's not a hot item for me either. But if called to jury duty, I will serve!

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
June 4, 2008 9:32 pm

George, the cat: what one REALLY has to wonder is have perhaps the people finally awakened to the malevolent influence of the public unions in our city government. Peters gone! Imagine! And if that were not good enough, our bonus is Carl DeMaio. Perhaps -- with any luck -- he will be the next Council President. To quote a Kaiser Permanente ad running ad nauseam on TV: "things are lookin' up!"

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 6:44 am

Wow, I agree with both Edgar and Billy Bob! As to Edgar's comments, he is sadly correct. There is such a dumbing down of so many of the kids coming out of our public schools today, they just do not appreciate the special privilege that is given to them in the right to vote; something hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives for, that we may be free, living in a democracy, that should engender eager citizen participation. It's not a surprise, though, when things like civics (remember that class, back when?) and American history are either removed or downplayed in our public schools and universities. I was quite relieved to see, however, that those who did vote chose not to elect Francis (an amazing flip-flopper on so many issues) on the one hand, as well as the "negligent" Peters and Maienschein on the other hand. Yes!

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 7:19 am

Wow, I agree with both Edgar and Billy Bob! As to Edgar's comments, he is sadly correct. There is such a dumbing down of so many of the kids coming out of our public schools today, they just do not appreciate the special privilege that is given to them in the right to vote; something hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives for, that we may be free, living in a democracy, that should engender eager citizen participation. It's not a surprise, though, when things like civics (remember that class, back when?) and American history are either removed or downplayed in our public schools and universities. I was quite relieved to see, however, that those who did vote chose not to elect Francis (an amazing flip-flopper on so many issues) on the one hand, as well as the "negligent" Peters and Maienschein on the other hand. Yes!

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 7:19 am

Again, you're right, Edgar, that the public unions did NOT fare very well, at all, in this election. Either their dupes were defeated outright (Francis, Peters, George x 2), or will be forced into runoffs in the November election (Whitburn and Emerald). As for Whitburn, you can argue that 70%+ of the people in D3 chose not to vote for him, while roughly 55%+ of voters in D7 did not choose Emerald. Between Gloria and Whitburn, District 3 will just continue to be a lost cause, whichever one of them prevails in November. (No, that's not sour grapes on my part.) In District 7, let's hope April Boling gets that 55%+ of voters who did not select Emerald. Finally, in District 1, Lightner and her supporters need to be mindful that roughly two-thirds of the votes cast there were for the Republican candidates, something we can hope to see again...

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 7:56 am

Friendly request to the Voice editors: Is there something you can do to stop the duplication of commenters' posts? I did not submit my comments twice (#15 and #16). There is some kind of glitch in your software or server that is causing that to happen... Thanks. :-)

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 8:07 am

Edgar, Edgar, Edgar . . . Carl DeMaio=nothing more, nothing less than a rightwing version of Michael Aguirre. Well, with this caveat: Mike is allegedly on meds and we have no info as to Carl. Did you see the youtube of Carl crawling up the hill to trash a George sign? Looked to me like he was in full Hillary mode. You folks on the right do have a very good and competent candidate in April Boling -- your version of Christine Kehoe. If you righties really care about the city and its future you should be supporting her vigorously. She's the real deal.

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 8:17 am

Stop blaming young people for not voting, they've been coming out in droves and getting involved more and more since 2004. Give them some credit, they are smarter than you think!

Posted by Judy | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 8:21 am

What puzzles me is that over 3 million people live in San Diego and less than 200,000 voted. What does that say? Not even 1 percent of those who voted are making the decisions for the mass populas. At least I'm one of the voters and so are all in my household. For my household seeing PETERS loose with only 20% was the best! My community can rest a bit easier. And it is SO interesting that no one not even the VOSD is interviewing him. Why not?

Posted by nelson | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 9:29 am

Judy: Your comments are only true at the presidential level, where lots of young people are inspired by Obama. That is most certainly not the case down at the local and state levels, which continue to have relatively low turnouts by young people.

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 9:55 am

"Its the lowest voter turnout since 1979, despite the fact that the population (and presumably the eligible voters) have increased by 43% from 1980 to 2006. Percentage wise (of registered voters), I wonder if the turnout has ever been less. A full 84.8% of registered voters in San Diego did NOT vote for Sanders for mayor in this election."

Posted by SD_Apathy | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 11:08 am

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Too funny!!! Not only was the turnout low in this election, but Democrat voters couldn't even bring themselves to return Jess Durfee, chairman of the Dems' county party, back to the Central Committee! That's ironic -- don't you think??? Ha ha ha ha ha...

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 2:52 pm

It doesn't change the point of the column, but remember that there are still 75,000 ballots left to be counted countywide.

Posted by Douglas Johnson | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 3:34 pm

SD Apathy, as for your claimed 84.8 percent -- that's THEIR problem, not that of those of us who voted for Sanders. I give credit to those idiots who stay at home in a drunken stupor before the TV rather than vote -- although I fully realize it was not a conscious decision on their part. To repeat, I really don't want morons marking X's in little boxes because they like the sound of someone's name. I never vote for every office. Republican Central Committee? Nope, except for the rare instance when I have known someone running. Superior Court judge? Ususally not, although occasionally I know some candidate personally and may vote for him (or not). It's called informed voting. Those who are ill-informed and vote anyway endanger our democracy.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 5:12 pm

I like low turnout because it means my vote counts for twice what it would with high turnout. Also, probably the main reason our turnout isn't that high is that people are relatively satisfied with their lot in life and don't feel motivated to try to change things too much. That's especially true when they know our city is in the very capable hands of a great mayor.

Posted by Algernon Sidney | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 5:46 pm

I voted, but cannot blame any "young person" who just didn't see the relevance of voting in this election . It was a local Republican beauty contest in which only an ersatz Democrat, Scott Peters, lost. Depressing candidates, depressing outcomes. November will be a different ballgame when lots of younger voters come out for Barack Obama and vote for other better candidates than in this lack-luster Primary. I am looking forward to the Fall.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 7:07 pm

The biggest reason for a low turn out is because there were no state wide (98 and 99 don't really count) or national elections. November will be a different story. I do agree that a low turn out means the hard core voters have a much bigger impact and know the issues better, so it is a better situation really.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 8:38 pm

Edgar, you are denigrating people for not picking in a race in which they don't like either candidate and call them morons, then freely admit that you are routinely unprepared to vote and often don't.

Posted by SD_Apathy | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 9:35 pm

Algernon Sidney: Or instead of being satisfied, people could be disgusted but resigned to the fact that corporate interests own city government and there would not be a significant difference between the two candidates. How do you know that Sanders is a great Mayor? Is it because Fred Sainz told you so? Or is it because you read an article or an op-ed in the UT that Fred Sainz wrote? No information is allowed to come out of the city unless it first goes through the mayors spin machine run by Sainz, so where would you expect to hear anything other than that he is great? Now compare his campaign promises with what he has accomplished, and try to justify the difference between what Sanders has actually accomplished and how great Sainz says he is.

Posted by SD_Apathy | reply to this comment
June 5, 2008 9:41 pm

BBH, whatever happened to your predictions of how well Aguirre would do? As I recall, you opined Aguirre would do so well he might event get a majority in the primary. Now, second place for an incumbant in the primary has never spelled success in the general election, as far as I can remember, but I could be wrong. Still, there is plenty of time between now and November. I'm not counting Aguirre out yet, but his showing and financial backing are not looking good at the moment, and Goldsmith will not be the easy pickings that Peters would have been.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
June 6, 2008 2:16 pm

SD Apathy, NONE of your snide remarks correctly reflect what I wrote (but, of course, you know that). Let's just agree on you vote your way and I'll vote mine. You can whine about people not voting. For me, it is the result of the voting that counts. Somehow, I don't think that having those vote scofflaws go to the polls would produce a result appealing to me. And, if you think the PROCESS of voting is more important than the result, consider this: you herd all these ignoranti into the polls, tell them to start pulling levers or marking X's and when they get to "Mayor of SD," what do you think will happen? Most will see "Sanders, Incumbent," think, "oh, OK" and vote for him. Somehow, I don't think you are a Sanders kind of guy. OK by me, but either way, the process is flawed.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
June 6, 2008 7:57 pm

32. Rock On wrote on June 6, 2008 3:16 PM: "BBH, whatever happened to your predictions of how well Aguirre would do?... . . .WELL, Mike took a second and blew the doors off three other candidates. Goldsmith beat him by a mere 3 points-or less than 10%, while Mike did NOT even mount a campaign. Mike was outspent 30-1 and still came close to winning the majority of popular votes. 68% of voters voted against Goldsmith. Most of those voters were Democrats. In November, based on the current presidential primary history, the Democratic turnout will be far greater than at anytime in recent history with Obama bringing in new and young voters by the millions. Democratic voters mainly. That tells me Mike will win in November. If I were a betting man I would put ALL my money on Mike in November.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
June 9, 2008 1:06 pm

All your money on Mike? Well..judging on your prediction that Sanders was not going to win another four years, I'm not betting on you.

Posted by Beamnn | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 6:17 am

Also, I think its unfair to judge the CA race on party lines. In fact, labor is overwhelmingly Democrat, and the last time I looked, they're not to happy with Mike trying to roll back their pensions.

Posted by Beamnn | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 6:22 am

Also, I think its unfair to judge the CA race on party lines. In fact, labor is overwhelmingly Democrat, and the last time I looked, they're not to happy with Mike trying to roll back their pensions.

Posted by Beamnn | reply to this comment
June 10, 2008 6:22 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.