This is the Oakland Local Archive. Please visit our current site at http://oaklandlocal.com.
Login has been disabled on the archive.

How Occupy Oakland has surfaced gut-wrenching questions for Democracy in Oakland (Community Voices)

Dan Cohen Sun, 13 Nov at 10:05am
Photo by stilakes, http://www.flickr.com/photos/10085979@N07/6339467999/in/photostream/

Photo by stilakes, http://www.flickr.com/photos/10085979@N07/6339467999/in/photostream/

Nearly every day since Occupy Oakland has taken up residence on Frank Ogawa Plaza, people have been calling for the Mayor to resign. Formal recall petitions have been circulated and quiet conversations are occurring on the political left, right, and center, for what a recall might mean for the city.  There are even heated debates on-line and in coffee shops over whose city this is – the occupiers and their tent community, or the 400,000 who call Oakland home.

Lost in all this back and forth are the impacts on a city caught in political whiplash. Here are three questions that rise to the surface once we look beyond the moment-to-moment political shifts in the wind.

Is The End of the Four-year term?

Call it Total Recall: The house that Grey Davis & Arnold Schwarzenegger built.

Many believe Mayor Quan committed an apparent misstep in her leadership during the removal of the tents at Frank Ogawa Plaza, and very soon catcalls emerged and the recall petition gatherers appeared.   Once the Mayor allowed the campers back on the plaza, her political opponents accelerated the call for her removal and her supporters began questioning her loyalty.

The question for all of us is what happens when elected officials no longer think of having a four year term? What happens when they are forced to operate day- to-day with the presence of a well-financed recall hanging over their head?  How much leeway do they have to make controversial choices?  How much room for error do they have?  If we expect our elected to grow and learn from their mistakes during their term, this constant pressure may be counterproductive.

What are The Costs of Ranked Choice Voting?

Late Friday night, Nov. 4, KCBS released a poll showing Mayor Quan had a 15% approval rating - a figure lower than her much-maligned predecessor.  How could a mayor sink so far, so fast, and what does this mean for her ability to govern?

In the 2010 election, Mayor Quan received 24% of the first-place votes cast.  That means 76% of voters selected another candidate as their first choice.  Given that, what base of support, or even mandate, can a candidate claim if nearly 3 in 4 voters selected someone else? In an era of ranked choice voting, what margin for error does the politician really have?  What base can she draw on during difficult times?

President Bill Clinton’s opponents pointed out the fact that he was elected with a plurality, but not majority of the popular vote.  The talking points for the GOP revolution in 1994 included the mantra that more people voted against Bill Clinton, than for him.  It took an incredibly skillful politician and a unique human being to scale this political mountain.

Whose City is it? Where are decisions made?

As the camp continues to grow on the Plaza, Councilmember Nancy Nadel, shared something remarkable about her thoughts on whose city it is at the Nov. 1 special meeting.  She said,

“We’ve had homeless people living in our neighborhood. We’ve dealt with their feces and wastewater. And so we have to, as a city, embrace this problem and not just make it nice and normal in front of City Hall.”(Approximately 4 hours into the 5th hour meeting).

Was she calling for the Plaza to be turned over in total to the protestors with no oversight?

Not only have advocates for jobs and housing put thousands of hours into the rebirth of the Downtown corridor, but they have also put a lot of time into the permitting, zoning, and the General Plan.    What does it say about our City’s elected leaders if these processes can be tossed aside when it’s politically appealing or expedient?

Nadel added, “We (Councilmembers) haven’t been showing up at the General Assembly to say what we needed to say…I appreciate the way a society is being built out on the plaza.”

The question this raises is whose voice is being heard, honored and valued by our elected leaders? Where are the venues that matter and where is policy made?  Is it made on the Plaza? Is it made in City Hall or at the ballot box?

What’s next?

We are living in interesting, fascinating, and heartrending times.  We are being challenged by many economic and social forces including many that are beyond our reach.  Facing this, how do we live up to our democratic ideals in our city?

There are plenty of people out there who are more than willing to pit us against each other and take away our voting rights, the power of our civic engagement, and our ability to lead.  The questions before us highlight the choices we have to make – and how those choices impact our democracy and the way that we elect and empower those we select with our ballots.

 

About Dan Cohen
greenkozi commented on Sun, 13 Nov at 11:40pm:

it's hard for me to process this without getting stuck on where the facts are stretched a little thin.

1. The recall petition for Mayor Quan was filed BEFORE the Occupy Oakland camp was evicted the first time. (Recall the 24th of October, OO evicted early morning of the 25th.) Sure, the recall efforts have probably been supported by the events of Oct 25th and onwards, but they are not linked, unless you're a conspiracy theorist. On the other hand, it's rumored that the City Council is talking about a vote of "no confidence" most definitely since OO.

 

2. Re: Ranked choice voting/plurality: Councilwoman Kaplan and Mayor Quan used a sort of strategy in this election that clearly won Quan the race. Looking back on it now, it's not clear if it worked for Quan, as you've correctly stated that she didn't have as many votes as Perata.  But she *did* have as many 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place votes as Perata, which is how the system works, now, and many of those came from voters who voted for the Quan/Kaplan "block." if you include Kaplan's numbers, would your opinion change?

 

3. When were Dellums' approval ratings taken? What kind of crises did he face (and deal with) that were anything like this? Were polls taken before or after we found out about his propensity to ignore taxes? I feel like comparing Dellums' and Quan's popularity is apples to oranges, not that I'm going to fall on the favorable side of either of them.

 

You raise some really interesting questions, but I think that we need start at a level starting point.

 

 

Dan Cohen commented on Tue, 15 Nov at 11:37am:

This is tremendous feedback.  A few thoughts...

1.  Recall petitions may have been circulating, but in the media & public perception it got a rocket boost once #oo conflict began.  That's what I was trying to call attention to.

2.  RCV is a total mind-shift. The idea to view the Quan/Kaplan voters as a bloc is an interesting one.  I wonder if/how that perception has sunk in across the broader swath of voters? Any Mayor needs a city standing behind him/her once elected.

3.  I pulled the Dellums # from a tweet I saw go by once new Quan numbers were released. Unclear if taken at the end of his term when things were at worst (like should he/shouldn't he leave early). 

Sandra Citron commented on Tue, 15 Nov at 9:24pm:

Good point about whose voices our so-called "leaders" listen to. Seems they listen to whoever screams the loudest, and the longest, at the council meetings. Up until the murder at OO, they listened to the "protestors" (I use the term loosely, since OO seems to consist in large part of thugs, drifters, and self-proclaimed anarchists) instead of the law-abiding citizens of this city. Same thing. It's as if the out-of-control city council meetings just took a step outside. 

It's true that some of us have been calling for Quan's recall since way before OO, and with good reason. She has shown absolutely no leadership. And in any crisis, the city was bound to have a major failure. Now it has happened. 

Many are saying that revolutionary groups have targeted Oakland as a town ripe for major rioting and a civil war. I personally believe that may be the case. OO has nothing  to do with legitimate protest any more, although it did to some extent in its early days.At this point, OO contains something monstrous and frightening. To some of us, it has for some time. Quan and her ilk on the council are either complicit in that or refuse to see it for what it is.

 

greenkozi commented on Fri, 18 Nov at 10:47pm:

Hey Dan, thanks for the response!

 

Once I got my annoying anal fact-y stuff out of the way, your point about the end of the 4-year term has really stuck with me. It's a fascinating thought- though I was hardly a Gray Davis fan, the recall was one of the most bizarre things that I watched unfold. We elected the man, then decided he wasn't fit to serve his term. What did that mean for California's "system"? Was it made possible by the Clinton impeachment (which, of course, didn't result in a shortened term)? When we elect someone now, are we saying "for as long as we feel like it" or "for the whole x year term, for better or worse"? Does it matter?

 

I'm of the feeling that we're stuck with our elected officials. It's my responsibility to vote, and that, barring some major rehaul of the system, vote for the person I want for the duration of the term.  The Davis recall was not particularly fair or, in my opinion, ethical. So as far as I'm concerned, we've got Quan for now, take it or leave it unless she becomes convictable of some crime/impeachable, etc. (Read: In my opinion, Bush was not even a 1-term president because of war crimes, but that's not a recall situation.) I wouldn't be surprised if Quan was looking for some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card right now, but she's stuck with us, too.

 

And yes, I do think RCV played a large part in the election, a huge part, in fact, but I'm not an expert.