I think that the only candidate that deserves your vote is London Breed. She is good on housing and is running a positive campaign based on uniting San Francisco. She is smart, capable, has good policy advisers, and is the only candidate who will work with YIMBYs to build more housing.
Tell your friends: Don’t vote for Jane Kim. I prefer London Breed, but Mark Leno would be a fine alternative. Here’s why Jane Kim will be a disaster for our city:
I have a general voting strategy for props which works most of the time time:
Prefer to vote for new taxes, preferably without a set-aside
Vote for groups that don’t have a strong lobby (youth, disabled, homeless, low-income people, the environment)
Vote for social policy change in ways that agree with my values
Vote for things that price externalities
Vote against things which increase needless or unhelpful bureaucracy
Vote against things which infringe upon rights of the people
Vote against things which undermine good government
Generally vote against budget set-asides, which limit the ability of representatives to budget effectively
Don’t just vote NO on every ballot initiative. Here’s a justification for my YES and NO votes that fit within a general voting strategy. Feel free to share and/or print this out for election day.
I had previously only posted this on Facebook, but since I’m planning to do this for every election going forward I moved it here.
Don’t just vote NO on every ballot initiative. Here’s a justification for my YES votes that fit within a general voting strategy. Feel free to share and/or print this out for election day.
My voting strategy is:
(1) prefer to vote for new taxes, preferably without a set-aside,
(2) vote for groups that don’t have a strong lobby (youth, disabled, homeless, low-income people),
(3) vote for social policy change in ways that agree with my values,
(4) vote for things that price externalities.
And I try to vote no for everything that doesn’t meet those criteria and/or increases needless or unhelpful bureaucracy (5), or infringes upon rights (6).