Mulgrew told people not to vote for Adams. But in essence he may have helped Adams get elected. Mulgrew and the UFT could have taken advantage of RCV (see Politico below) --- but the UFT is center/right Democratic Party and Wiley was too far out -- they won't say it but would rather have Adams than Wiley - better to have more charters? Was it an error in judgment or a calculated political decision? No one outside the black box of narrow UFT decision making knows.
How dangerous is Adams? Ross Barkan let's us know.
Eric Adams and the Weapon of Identity
Eric Adams, Unleashed
And City and State reports:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she ranked Maya Wiley and
Scott Stringer as her Nos. 1 and 2 picks for New York City mayor while
making no mention of the sexual harassment accusations swirling around
Stringer, the Daily News reports.
Given that METOO was weaponized against Stringer, I see the AOC vote as a significant form of vindication - and condemnation of aspects of meetoo and automatic cancellation. And to some extent a point for Mulgrew and the UFT for sticking with Stringer.
But I keep asking how Mulgrew and his three men and one woman in the room make their decisions. But when you examine the history of real UFT politics - not what they say but what they do -- you can see that what I said to open this conversation is accurate. Better right wing than left wing.
Mulgrew has helped elect Adams by ignoring Wiley
My problem with the UFT is that they didn't offer alt choices, totally ignoring the new RCV system. In other words, locking us into a loser, once again. Many of us, and some inside the UFT itself, pushed for at the very least Wiley as a #2. With her in 2nd place and with a chance to overtake Adams, in essence Mulgew has helped Adams despite calling for him and Yang to be left off the ballot.
So if Wiley could have beaten Adams if the UFT had backed her, watch what happens when charters invade in force and Mulgrew will run away from this mistake.
I think the Stringer collapse and the questions raised as progressives blew a chance to win will have repercussions. Every male candidate better search his past back to elementary school. I just remembered, I looked up a girl's dress when I was 5.
Here are some of my reports on the UFT, Stringer and the questionable charges.
Here's an example explaining how Mulgrew and the UFT could have taken advantage of RCV -- but the UFT is center/right Democratic Party and Wiley was too far out -- they won't say it but would rather have Adams - just as they'd prefer Trump to a Bernie.
Politico: RANKED CHOICE VOTING: IT’S AUSTRALIAN FOR ELECTIONS —
Ranked choice voting isn’t complicated — but you’d never know it from New York City’s mayoral race.
Nightly contacted each of the top candidates, not one of them had a
plan for telling their voters how to rank the rest of the candidates on
their ballots. Sure, Andrew Yang has been saying for months that he
would rank Kathryn Garcia second, and he urged his supporters to do so
at a weekend rally — but he failed to even update his website with the
instruction. A list of ranked-choice recommendations is not posted on
any candidate’s site, or printed on their mailers.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave a more detailed RCV guide for downballot races than any of the mayoral candidates did for their own race.
That’s Election 101 stuff in Australia, my home country and the global capital of ranked choice voting
, where the system is used in all elections from college campuses to
federal elections. In New York, where I live now, voting may be about
to end at 9 p.m. ET, but the crapshoot among five leading candidates is
only just starting.
since New Yorkers voted by a 74-26 margin to introduce ranked choice
voting in 2019 — joining the state of Maine and cities including San
Francisco and Minneapolis — the system has been under attack, including from Eric Adams, the leading candidate in today’s mayoral race
. In a decision that may fuel suspicions, the city’s notorious election board won’t commit to timely publication of ongoing vote totals.
But the real problem has been the failure of the candidates to adapt their campaign strategies to the new system.
In a ranked choice system, self-interest dictates that a
candidate should make deals with rivals and communicate those deals with
voters. But admitting you need voters who think you’re only second-best
is the antithesis of New York toughness.
lowest-ranked candidates could have formed a coalition to take on the
big shots, while the more left-wing candidates such as Maya Wiley, Scott
Stringer and Dianne Morales could have worked together to blunt the
moderates at the top of opinion polls.
Instead it was moderate Kathryn Garcia who did most
to explore preference deals, and even that was half-hearted. She failed to return the favor when Yang recommended her as his second choice.
Australia’s experience with ranked choice voting shows that deals among candidates can affect the results. Australian candidates have won ranked choice elections with as little as 0.2 percent of first choice votes
. Senator Ricky Muir won a Senate seat in 2013 after starting with
0.5 percent of the vote: He vacuumed up another half million or so votes
from voters who ranked him second or lower, closing a 400,000 vote gap.
(Muir is an exception, though. The main outcome the system has led to in the Australian Senate, where eight parties are represented, is diversity without gridlock.)
are “Anyone But X” campaigns. In San Francisco, mayoral candidates Jane
Kim and Mark Leno formed a tactical alliance against Mayor London Breed,
getting within 2,500 votes of unseating her in 2018.
In New York, Adams — a former Republican — is a vulnerable frontrunner sitting at the top of opinion polls with just 24 percent support.
An “Anyone by Adams” campaign could have worked, but his rivals
missed that tactical opportunity, leaving it up to individual
anti-Adams voters to coordinate to defeat him.
Polls alone should have told the leading candidates the usual tactics wouldn’t cut it. Five candidates have regularly polled in double digits
— Adams, Andrew Yang, Kathryn Garcia, Maya Wiley and Scott Stringer —
but none is polling above 25 percent. That means each of them needs to
double or triple their vote totals to win
collecting second, third, fourth and fifth preference votes as their
lower-ranked rivals are eliminated and their votes are redistributed.
In the absence of coordinated rivals, Adams used his frontrunner status to slam ranked choice voting
as a form of voter suppression: “Everyone knows that every layer you
put in place in the process, you lose Black and brown voters and
participation,” he told POLITICO. He
railed Monday against Yang and Garcia for finally daring to campaign together.
By Adams’ logic, the same people who voted for ranked choice voting are going to be disenfranchised by it. But voters say they’re happy with the system,
and Adams is in pole position. In 96 percent of American ranked choice
elections since 2004, the candidate with the most first-preference votes
ended up winning.
It’s not even New York’s first time at this rodeo: A version of ranked choice voting was in place from 1936 to 1947,
allowing the first women and black candidates to be elected to the City
Council. The local Democratic machine disliked the reduced control that
ranked choice voting forced on them, and worked for years to abolish the system.
As the leading candidate, Adams cannot coast to victory under ranked choice. Instead,
he must listen to and appeal to voters well beyond his base. If he
fails in that task, one of the lower ranked candidates will sweep up
second preference votes and overtake him when the final results are
tabulated sometime in the week of July 12.
If Adams ends up winning, he may work to kill New York’s new voting system. His rivals would have only themselves to blame.Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas for us at email@example.com, or on Twitter at @politicoryan.
Another interesting article on RCVhttps://www.wired.com/story/ranked-choice-voting-reveals-the-weird-math-of-elections