Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 2, 2016

Act locally

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

I don’t know if everyone has been paying attention to the list of subpar individuals that have been floated (or offered) cabinet positions in the new presidential administration but this is a good reminder of why there are checks and balances for nominations to key positions in any form of government, big or small.

While it’s easy to get upset about a national level appointment, but much harder to make a difference, the reverse is often true locally.  We seem to not care that much about local appointees to key Boards and Commissions, but yet locally is where there is the opportunity to make an outsized difference.   This is one of the reasons why outgoing City Councilmember Tony Daysog’s insistence on rubber-stamping  Trish Spencer’s nominations without any due diligence was so frustrating.

While, he’s right, elections do have consequences, but those consequences do not absolve a City Councilmember from exercising good judgment.  While it’s not a huge surprise that the Mayor would want to place individuals on Boards and Commissions that she believes that are best aligned with her politics, the role of the City Council is to check the Mayor when she is acting in her own best interest as opposed to making a decision that is in the best interest of the City as a whole.

As we watch the national horrors unfold, I hope that as we hope that our national leaders do the right thing and use their powers to check some of the really egregious nominations nationally, we should remember that locally these decisions matter too.

Advertisements

12 Comments »

  1. While I disagree with you nationally, I wholeheartedly agree with you locally. There are some very positive and qualified individuals to be brought forth into our City’s governance. Several regular contributors here.

    BMac for Planning Commission
    Angela for Social Service Human Relations
    We all know who should be on the RRAC

    Any other suggestions?

    Comment by Bart — December 2, 2016 @ 7:22 am

  2. “subpar individuals” Compared to who? We’ve managed to survive eight years of the worst presidency in the history of the country, a zealot who promised to ‘fundamentally” change this country and tried his best to make the best country the world has ever seen into a banana dictatorship. Another eight years of what Hillary promised would have sealed the fate. But then. what can you expect when all the takers have the right to vote for more take, huh dave?

    Comment by jack — December 2, 2016 @ 10:34 am

  3. http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/numbers-shut-liberals-electoral-college

    There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

    Trump won 3,084 of them.
    Clinton won 57.

    There are 62 counties in New York State.

    Trump won 46 of them.
    Clinton won 16.

    Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

    In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

    Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

    These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
    The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

    When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

    Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

    http://www.vivaliberty.com/day-one-of-wisconsin-recount-hillary-gains-one-vote/

    Comment by vigi — December 2, 2016 @ 12:07 pm

    • There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
      Trump won 3,084 of them.
      Clinton won 57.

      Actually Clinton won over 600 counties but your observation about concentration of voters is accurate.

      Here a few pictorial representation of votes. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016
      .

      Comment by Mike McMahon — December 3, 2016 @ 2:01 pm

      • “My observation” was a copy-and-paste post from the Allen West blog cited. It has since been corrected by Snopes, but only brings Hillary up to 164 counties. How did you come up with “over 600”? Those cartograms of the US look like they were created by an artist on LSD.

        600/3141 = still only 19% of the total.

        The moral of the story is: if you want electoral votes to represent more voters, encourage them to move to Wyoming, not the California coast. We are already chock full o’liberals. Cramming in more won’t elect your candidate. Maybe Alameda voters should have a say in how much affordable housing is built in Texas. According to Larry, we’re all in the same neighborhood.

        Comment by vigi — December 3, 2016 @ 3:39 pm

        • We’re all Americans. 2.5 million more of us voted for Clinton than Trump.

          Comment by Larry.Witte — December 3, 2016 @ 8:18 pm

    • Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.5 million votes. California is part of the Unitfed States.

      Comment by Larry.Witte — December 3, 2016 @ 2:07 pm

      • Witless, Larry? You’re whining proof that you should not have the right to vote. You evidently have no knowledge of the origin and motivation behind the Constitution and the political concept in the forming of a Democratic Republic limited by the Constitution.

        Comment by jack — December 4, 2016 @ 10:17 am

  4. ONE ACRE ONE VOTE! lol

    Comment by Gaylon — December 2, 2016 @ 5:28 pm

    • One state one vote you mean.

      Comment by jack — December 2, 2016 @ 6:34 pm

  5. On a related note about how where you live impacts the importance of your vote, the Supreme Court wades into the murky waters of redistricting. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-tackles-the-political-riddle-of-race-based-gerrymandering/

    Comment by Mike McMahon — December 5, 2016 @ 7:45 am

  6. Update: In Michigan, over 1/2 of Hillary Clinton’s Detroit vote count is faces disqualification.

    Trump officially won Wisconsin by over 22,000 votes in Wisconsin but thanks to Jill Stein a recount is currently underway.

    After day 3 of the recount the official updated recount results for Day 3 on Wisconsin Board of Elections upate page showed Hillary Clinton losing 18,422 votes while Donald Trump lost 3,289 resulting in a net increase of 15,133 votes.

    Today the recount results for day 5 were released and it now shows Hillary has lost 32,423 votes and Donald Trump has lost 3,593 votes resulting in a net increase of 28,830 votes for Donald Trump.

    …be careful what you wish for, snowflakes…

    Comment by vigi — December 6, 2016 @ 2:51 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.