Are you like us and still getting your head around picking three candidates for a given office? As people get used to ranked-choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting), its’ some interesting results.

In recognition of this new twist, we thought we’d state the obvious: Ranked-choice voting lets you pick a first, second, and third choice candidate for a single office. If no one wins a majority based on first-place votes, the last-place candidates are eliminated. Voters who picked those losers are switched to supporting their second choice, like they would in a runoff. This makes it possible to get a majority winner without the delay and expense of actually holding a separate runoff election. But it requires more work from you — it’s important to select a second or third place candidate you could support if your top choice were eliminated. To learn more about ranked choice voting, check out this neat tutorial.

If you need to know where to vote, look up your polling place.

Read on for the cheat sheet and our explanations for each recommendation.

Mayor
1) John Avalos, 2) Dennis Herrera

District Attorney
1) David Onek, 2) Sharmin Bok, 3) Bill Fazio

Sherrif
1) Ross Mirkarimi

City Measures
Prop A, Schools Bond – YES
Prop B, Roads Bond – YES
Prop C, City Pension and Retiree Health Care Reform – YES
Prop D, City Pension Reform – NO
Prop E, Initiative Amendment Reform – YES
Prop F, Campaign Consultant Disclosure – YES
Prop G, 0.5% Sales Tax Increase – YES
Prop H, School Assignment Policy – NO

Mayor

This election cycle has been difficult to navigate because there are many candidates who seem like they would do “fine”. In trying to put our finger what is actually happening, we stumbled upon Alix Rosenthal’s insightful identification of the zeitgeist: “It’s confusing… what do you do when there isn’t a polarizing character in the San Francisco Mayor’s race? Incumbent Mayor Ed Lee is widely considered to be the front-runner. He’s a competent manager with a disarming mustache and many years of experience in city government. He has also brought openness and a sense of humor to the office. However, he has a serious problem keeping his promises, some of his supporters have been accused of election fraud, and most agree that he takes direction from Willie Brown and Chinatown powerbroker Rose Pak. But he’s no wine mogul who sleeps with his employees, marries B-list actresses and hates the little people. Ahem. That said, there are several better candidates for Mayor in this race, so why settle for “Mr. Not-a-Douche”? Here are three we like! And remember: ranked choice voting will likely significantly shape this race. In order for a candidate to win they have to secure 50% of the votes. With so many reasonable candidates, that could be difficult for anyone to win simply from the first choice results. We predict that the next mayor will have a broad base of support so be sure to pay attention to your 2nd and 3rd place votes!

(1) John Avalos
Avalos is not your typical politician. His leadership style stems from his life as a family man, a public servant, and a community organizer. He and his amazing wife Karen Zapata, a long-time teacher and activist, have brought their story to the forefront of his campaign and we agree: working families should have a place in San Francisco! And he can get things done. As Budget Chair of the Board of Supervisors he has closed a combined $1 billion deficit over two years, saved hundreds of jobs and protected our City’s safety-net. His platform to revitalize our local economy is pretty awesome. He proposes creating our own local bank. Apparently, San Francisco has a budget of over $6.5 billion, which is currently held at Wells Fargo and Bank of America. He challenges the status quo and asks SF residents to consider the upside: we can choose where our tax dollars go and whom they benefit. Avalos will lead us in creating our own local bank, one that serves our local economy. His vision to leverage our tax dollars to provide loans for our small businesses, generate new revenue, and keep families in their homes is impressive to us. It stands on the shoulders of his lifetime giant effort to represent the 99%.

(2) Dennis Herrera
Herrera is best known for his court action in favor of gay marriage, including against Proposition 8. He was re-elected as City Attorney in 2009 with 96 percent of the vote. He is so good at his job that most folks wish he would keep doing it! Leading an award-winning law office for almost ten years has given him an opportunity unique in this race to prove his mettle for executive leadership. He has taken on powerful interests to protect San Franciscans. From negotiating the shutdown of the dirty Potrero power plant to creating hundreds of units of affordable housing in a groundbreaking deal with Trinity Place, he’s demonstrated an ability to take on the toughest adversaries and still work cooperatively to solve problems.

[UPDATE: We had David Chiu as our #2, but this post from JWZ convinced us to remove him.]

District Attorney

(1) David Onek
Onek is the only candidate unequivocally opposed to the death penalty. As a leader in efforts to reform the criminal justice system with experience in both policy and practice, if elected, Onek will be one of the most progressive DA’s in the nation. He opposes “3 strikes” laws for non-violent offenders and recognizes the connections between these laws and CA’s current prison crisis. While supporting long prison terms for violent offenders, he advocates for providing low-level criminals with rehabilitation services, such as job training and drug treatment, to get them back on track and prevent crime. Other policy positions include supporting foot patrols by police and opposing ban of sitting on the sidewalk. Onek has the broadest and most diverse coalition of support, including the Green Party, the Democratic Party, the Sierra Club, the California Policy Chiefs Association, and six of the seven school board members, who recognize him as the one DA candidate with a plan to keep kids in school and out of the juvenile justice system.

(2) Sharmin Bock
Bock has spent decades working on crimes against women and children, and has 22 years of experience prosecuting crimes and managing other prosecutors through the Alameda County District Attorney’s office. She has led the way in focusing public attention on and prosecuting the purchase of children for sex. Though she has good working relationships with police officers, she believes it is vital that the DA and the police be entirely independent of one another so that the public can be assured of police transparency and accountability. Bock may actually secure the preference position for some of us for District Attorney because of her amazing record in the court room. She just has so much more experience than Onek or Fazio. We would like to think that Onek’s idealism and platform of change could translate into structural reform, but if that goal seems like too big of a stretch for the constrained political climate, Bock would serve San Francisco with excellence and aplomb.

(3) Bill Fazio
Bill Fazio has a rare combination of experience. He was an Assistant District Attorney for 20 years before becoming a defense attorney. That said, we are curious if his style will fall prey to a pitfall we’ve observed wherein a defense attorney can sometimes be harsher in a prosecutorial position. That was speculative but perhaps interesting. Fazio hit the nail on the head trying to distiguish his candidacy from that of Onek or Gascón: it is “absolutely incredible” they have never tried a case. For those who are inclined to go with an defense attorney who has tried a case in San Francisco, Fazio is your man.

Sheriff

(1) Ross Mirkarimi
A graduate of San Francisco’s Police Academy, Mirkarimi has extensive law enforcement experience, serving nine years as an armed San Francisco District Attorney Investigator. Elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2004, Ross served twice as Chair of the Public Safety Committee and passed landmark community policing, police reform and re-entry legislation. And he is endorsed by just about everybody: Sierra Club, San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, SF Tenants Union, San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, San Francisco Arts Democratic Club, San Francisco for Democracy, African American Democratic Club, Latino Democratic Club, San Francisco Young Democrats, League of Pissed Off Voters, San Francisco Labor Council, Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymembers Fiona Ma and Tom Ammiano, Supervisors Mar, Kim, Campos, Avalos.

City Measures

PROP. A Schools Bond – YES
If passed, this allows the school district (SFUSD) to sell $531M in bonds to repair and update school facilities. There have been two previous bond measures and this is the third and final in an overall 10-year plan that started in 2001. Things seem to be happening on time and under budget with the previous bonds. I believe the children are our future, etc. This measure requires a 55% majority to pass.

PROP. B Roads Bond – YES
Proposition B would allow the city to sell general obligation bonds to fund the repaving of deteriorated city streets; make seismic improvements to bridges, overpasses and stairs; and improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Since the 1987 street improvements bond, the city has made two unsuccessful attempts to pass general obligation bonds for street repairs (in 1993 and 2005). Now the Mayor and Board of Supes have placed this on the ballot as part of the city’s 10-year Capital Plan. If you can believe it, there is actually a Pavement Condition Index (PCI). Right now we are at 64; the bond proceeds would elevate this score to 66 by 2015. Though this improvement appears slight, it bridges a crucial point in PCI scoring: Repair of streets with a score of 63 or less can cost as much as ten times more than repairing streets with a score of 64 or above. The measure is needed to address significant deferred maintenance of streets and comes at a time when further delaying will simply cost us more in the coming years.

PROP. C City Pension and Retiree Health Care Reform – YES
Prop. C addresses many of the city’s unfunded post-employment benefits: pension obligations, unfunded retirement health care obligations and health care costs. Without changes, retiree pension and health benefits will take an increasing share of the city’s discretionary budget, squeezing out important city services in favor of paying past obligations to retirees. This measure will help close the gap by achieving $1.29 billion in savings over 10 years. Also, we feel compelled to give a shout out to the Mayor and Board of Supes. Congress’s failure to cooperate for the benefit of our country is despicable. This is a great example of representatives from all districts (very unusual) deciding to take a consensus-based approach chip away at a huge beast of a problem. Go good government!

PROP. D City Pension Reform – NO
We dislike this prop for the reasons we like Prop. C. These two must be considered together because which ever one has the most votes will win. Prop. D generates more, much more, savings than the competing measure on the ballot (Prop. C). It is an aggressive approach that is well-balanced in spreading the financial burden of city pension benefits between employees and taxpayers. So why are we opposed to it? The measure was privately drafted without any input from city staff, unions or other stakeholders. We’re not sure why Public Defender Jeff Adachi failed to ask a City Manager or obtain direct feedback through some other channel, but we would like to see a solution that makes this big of an impact happen alongside feedback from empowered workers.

PROP. E Initiative Amendment Reform – YES
There is a lot of progressive resistance to Prop E, which gives us pause, but on the balance it seems to us like a good idea. Prop E unfreezes voter-approved laws, which unlike other laws can only be modified by going back to the voters. This is a big reason why there are so many nitpicky propositions every election — many are tiny corrections to previous measures that are needed to keep the law up to date. Prop E gives elected officials more flexibility under terms that seem pretty reasonable to us: After three years, a voter-approved law can be modified by 2/3 of the Board of Supervisors plus the Mayor. After seven years, a simple majority can send an amendment for the mayor’s approval. If you’ve ever wished that some propositions just get taken care of by our elected officials, Prop E will help them do that.

PROP. F Campaign Consultant Disclosure – YES
Prop F is precisely the kind of tiny procedural adjustment that Prop E is meant to avoid in the future. Back in 1997, a great ballot measure was passed to help increase transparency around lobbyist activity. This proposition makes small adjustments, increasing the amount of money lobbyists must earn before they have to register (from $1k to $5k — small either way), while increasing the frequency of reports. It also allows the Ethics Commission to make more tweaks on its own, which is the main point of contention. We think these changes are minor, and they were requested by the commission itself, so why not? If they misbehave we can just pass another ballot measure to rein things in. In the meantime, as with Prop E, we believe our elected officials should have more freedom to do their jobs.

PROP. G 0.5% Sales Tax Increase – YES
This tax increase will sustain or improve public services like public safety, children’s services and programs for seniors. The math is pretty simple. Earlier this year, the sales tax in SF was 9.5%. It is now 8.5%. Letting that 1% expire means less money coming from Sacramento for cities and counties. So the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors put Prop G on the ballot to increase the local sales tax rate by 0.5% to make up some of that revenue loss. This comes at a time when the Governor has, in efforts to balance California’s crushing debt, eliminated or reduced most ways that Cities and Counties usually fund this kind of thing.

PROP. H School Assignment Policy – NO
While this measure is “advisory” in nature, meaning non-binding, it’s wrong for all the same reasons that the system of neighborhood-based school assignments caused the NAACP to sue SFUSD in 1978: neighborhood schools will be segregated schools in a city where housing tends to be segregated. There’s no point in putting policy statements on the ballot if they don’t compel action. In this case, my vote is the same as if this measure was binding. The current system, while not perfect, is fair and balances between the needs of families (to have siblings attend the same school, for example) and the desire of the community to have quality schooling available to students regardless of where in San Francisco they live.

Other resources

If you want to quickly compare our recommendations with other voter guides, see our “slate” on Democracy Dashboard:

Image by Occupy Design »

Massive account closures could send a powerful message, but if you close your account, where should you put your money? Under the mattress is not our recommendation. In extended discussion, we found that some members of False Profit, LLC have already divested from large corporate banks and are now handling their finances at:

• New Resource Bank, a local, B-Corp, FDIC-insured bank with a focus on the environment.
• SF Fire Credit Union, open to all residents of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin counties.

If you’re wondering about the differences between banks and credit unions, this blog post from Mint is a helpful place to start.

If you’re ready to go, take a look at the Move Your Money Checklist for a clear, step-by-step guide to be sure you don’t miss any important parts of the process.

Will this really make a difference? That depends in large part on how many people participate. What we do know is what the banks themselves say about how consumer banking relates to their overall business.

“Bank of America’s Deposits segment includes the results of consumer deposit activities, which consist of a comprehensive range of products provided to consumers and small businesses. Deposit products continue to be a key driver of funding and liquidity for the bank.” (Bank of America, 2nd Quarter 2011 Investor Fact Book. Emphasis ours.)

A key driver. That’s you. If you’re unhappy, vote with your dollars!

It therefore gives us great pleasure to announce another breakthrough from our False Profit Records subsidiary, in the form of Dr. Toast’s new full-length album, Gravity Is Quiet, released today. We believe his key insights into this under-explored quality of natural attraction will yield much happiness for listeners worldwide.

The good doctor’s work on this 9-track opus took almost three years to complete, and involved extensive inquiry into closely-related fields such as bread, heavy objects, and faucets. A key breakthrough came when he asked his young nephew the difference between gravity and gravy. The boy replied, “Gravity is quiet, and gravy is sauce.”

An accompanying 4-track EP, False Sunrise, helps illuminate some of the still-unsolved mysteries of the natural world. We expect future research into the distortions of time, or perception of time, or perception to explain all the sunrises we end up seeing. For the time being, enjoy the most advanced soundtrack ever composed for morning, courtesy of Dr. Toast.





» Download the new album “Gravity Is Quiet” from Dr. Toast.

Not content to simply address the epidemic issues of poverty and race plaguing this nation, ill.Gates and False Profit Records are releasing the Schmunday School EP with eight tracks of highly enlightening downtempo. Proceeds will benefit the Goma Student Fund (GSF), which provides educational opportunities for children in Democratic Republic of Congo.

While some contend that listening to the bass-heavy music produced by ill.Gates will itself actually cause an increase in IQ, this has not yet been proven scientifically. The results in Africa are easier to measure — thanks to the GSF, there’s now a school in a refugee camp in a war-torn region where there wasn’t before. Partiers on all sides of the education debate can nod their heads to that.

» Download the new free/charity EP “Schmunday School” from ill.Gates.

» Invest in the San Francisco ill.Methodology Workshop.

ABOUT ILL.GATES
ill.Gates is a Toronto-based composer, performer and educator. He regularly tours internationally, and has headlined at such festivals as Burning Man, Shambala, the World Electronic Music Festival and the New Orleans Jazz Festival. His upcoming triple album The ill.Methodology is due out in September 2011 on Muti Music, as well as his highly anticipated online course for DJs and producers.
http://illgates.com

ABOUT GOMA STUDENT FUND
Inspired by the generosity of American friends, GSF was established in 2002 to create educational opportunities for children in the Congolese town of Goma, as it rebuilds in the wake of a 12-year civil war and 2002 volcanic eruption.
http://gomastudentfund.org

ABOUT MUTI MUSIC
Muti Music serves as a committed outlet for the commercial release of cathartic, expressionist and transformational frequencies in the form of audio waveforms. Based out of SF, Muti is a launch pad for some of the most unique and talented producers in the electronic music scene.
http://mutimusic.com

The grant offers a solo gallery show and a $500 award, intended to support artists in our communities by funding new work.

The submission deadline is Sunday, July 10th, 2011. See the grant posting for full details and the application.

Remember, False Profit loves you. We put our heads together and wrote up a guide for your trip to the polls this coming Tuesday, June 8. Click through for:

1. A cheat sheet for you ravers on autopilot,
2. Quick summaries for those who can stop dancing for long enough to dig into our reasoning, and
3. A whole matrix of recommendations for truly committed raver constituents who want to do their own research.

Cheat Sheet

CA Prop 13, Seismic Retrofit – YES
CA Prop 14, Top-Two Primary – NO
CA Prop 15, Fair Elections – YES
CA Prop 16, PG&E Monopoly – NO
CA Prop 17, Insurance Persistency Discounts/Rate Hikes – NO

SF Prop A, SFUSD Parcel Tax – YES
SF Prop B, Earthquake Safety Bond – YES
SF Prop C, Film Commission Appointments – YES
SF Prop D, Public Employee Pensions – YES
SF Prop E, Costs of Protecting Dignitaries – ?
SF Prop F, Rent Increase Appeals – YES
SF Prop G, Transbay Terminal – YES

Explanations

CA Prop 13, Seismic Retrofit -YES

Ninna/Sir Lee: Prop 13 alters the law so that certain types of seismic retrofits don’t trigger property tax reassessment. This is already the case for most properties, but due to the complicated and uninteresting history of the law, some buildings weren’t covered. Prop 13 would fix that, eliminating an economic barrier to some seismic retrofits. The measure doesn’t really seem controversial. The only opposing argument we’ve read was from the Green Party’s voter guide, and was essentially “we think Roy Ashburn is up to something tricky, but we can’t figure out what”.  Vote YES.

CA Prop 14, Top-Two Primary – NO

Jess: Prop 14 would place all candidates in one huge primary, regardless of party affiliation. The top two vote-getters would advance to the November ballot. In theory, the need to appeal to all voters would encourage politicians to become more moderate. In practice, primary campaigns would become more expensive with everyone trying to attract voters from other parties and buying airtime against a broad field of candidates from all parties. In addition, Prop 14 establishes minimum registered voter requirements that would outright eliminate all small parties except Greens and American Independents.  Basically, we’d have the two richest (i.e. corporate-sponsored) Republicrats in the general election and no one else. That means less choice and more politicians beholden to someone other than the voters who elected them. Vote NO.

CA Prop 15, Fair Elections – YES

Eric: CA voters decided to ban public financing of campaigns back in 1988. That’s been bad for the state: Publicly-financed campaigns allow average people’s voices to be heard in a political system that increasingly represents only a few wealthy donors. Prop 15 is awesome on several points: 1) It taxes lobbyists to fully finance any campaigns that qualify (and raises revenues for the state if not enough do), and 2) Lifts the ban on public campaign finance. A massive coalition of like-minded groups (all major papers, SPUR, Nurses association, etc.) are all for Prop15, but its still facing stiff opposition. Similar measures have failed twice in the last decade, so this is an important opportunity for the state to get the question right. Aside from voting, you can get involved here: http://www.yesfairelections.org/

CA Prop 16, PG&E Monopoly – NO

Ninna/Sir Lee: Prop 16 would make it harder for new providers to enter the local electricity market.  Pacific Gas & Electric loves this idea, and has spent at least $46 million on propaganda in support.  For everybody else, this is a terrible idea, and an example of the worst democracy has to offer.  Vote NO.

CA Prop 17, Insurance Persistency Discounts/Rate Hikes – NO

JD: This relates to auto insurance premiums, and if passed would allow new customers at a given insurer to get a “continuous coverage” discount if they had coverage before long enough.  While this sounds like it would allow more competition, many opponents assert that it is a thinly-disguised way to charge lapsing customers more by raising fees for them, and primarily benefits Mercury Ins., who have spent millions getting it on-ballot, and other huge auto insurers working CA. Labor, a consumer advocate, and papers from LA to Santa Cruz agree it won’t help most and will burden those poor enough to have to miss payments and need to drive.  Vote NO.

SF Prop A, SFUSD Parcel Tax – YES

Orange: This measure would extend a 1990 parcel tax that expires in 2010 by another 20 years, keeping it at its current rate ($32 a year for single family homes and commercial enterprises, $16 a year per dwelling unit for mixed use buildings). The tax brings in $7 million a year for San Francisco school facilities and would finance seismic upgrades, structural strengthening and related improvements of its facilities, and child care centers. Since our school infrastructure is deteriorating, this is a worthwhile tax and a good alternative to funding the project with bonds. This requires a two-thirds vote to pass. (All voter guides we surveyed gave this a YES vote.)

SF Prop B, Earthquake Safety Bond – YES

Jess: This $412 million bond will address seismic retrofitting of many SF public facilities including the Auxilary Water Supply System (primarily used by firefighters) and neighborhood fire houses.  It would also create a new public safety building in Mission Bay to house a new fire station, a district police station, and the citywide police command center.  As earthquakes are the most likely disaster to befall the city, this is necessary preventative work to insure essential services are maintained even during a disaster.  Vote YES.

SF Prop C, Film Commission Appointments – YES

JD: Passage would reform the city’s film commission so that appointees are split between the mayor and the board of supervisors.  The board would get five out of the eleven; currently the mayor picks them all.  It had wide support initially and still does to some degree, though now the Chronicle has come out opposed, claiming it’s another power-and-perks grab by city supervisors at the mayor’s expense, an argument echoed by several Republicans who wrote the official “no” arguments.  On the other side, supporters point out that it adds requirements for job qualifications and for representation from neighborhood and film-labor voices.  To me it makes sense to broaden the base of influences affecting the make-up of the Film Commission, and to require appropriate experience of the appointees, though note SPUR argues that a single overseer gives clearer accountability and prevents squabbles.  It’s not 100% clear-cut, but I still say:  Vote YES.

SF Prop D, Public Employee Pensions – YES

Amanda – Under this proposition, pensions would be calculated based on an average of the last two years of employment rather than solely the last year, when compensation tends to spike. The ballot measure has no formal opposition and would save taxpayers between $300 million and $500 million cumulatively over the next 25 years. While it will not solve the pension problem or address this year’s budget crunch, it is a step in the right direction. Vote YES.

SF Prop E, Costs of Protecting Dignitaries – ?

We’re split on this one, at the moment, but hope to have a solid recommendation by Tuesday.

SF Prop F, Rent Increase Appeals – YES

Pinkfist: This bill creates protections for those tenants at risk of losing their housing due to changes in their income. I am wary of the unintended consequences, but believe that many tenants may be able to avoid eviction.

SF Prop G, Transbay Terminal – YES

Orange: Prop G is an advisory measure asking that High Speed Rail go to the Transbay Terminal rather than to another space near the Caltrain station. This is sensible policy, since the Transbay Terminal is near Market Street and much more convenient to other public transit, such as BART and Muni. It is also what the voters thought we were getting when we approved bonds to pay for high-speed rail. (The California High-Speed Rail Project is moving to create bullet train service from SF to downtown Los Angeles using bond money approved by voters in 2008.) Note: On April 8, the CHSRA voted to designate the Transbay Transit Center as the northern terminus of the high-speed rail system, thereby removing the other site from consideration. However, Prop. G will still appear on the San Francisco ballot, and it’s still worth voting for to help prevent future backpedaling. (All voter guides we surveyed gave this a YES vote.)

Comparison Matrix

What did the Chronicle Say? How about SPUR or the Green Party? Or, maybe you want some guidance on the Candidates? If so, check out our full comparison matrix on Google Docs.

Props to The Mantis Project.