Determination: Mostly True
Analysis: Chula Vista City Council candidate John McCann has edged out opponent Steve Padilla by just two votes – for now.
Padilla said he’s likely to pursue a recount if no one else requests one first. McCann told NBC 7 last week that he isn’t too concerned by that prospect.
After all, McCann claimed, about 90 percent of election recounts don’t end with a new winner.
If that’s true, it would drive home the notion that recounts are a pricey gamble for politicians in California, who must foot the bill or wait for a supporter to do so to trigger a recount.
We Stand Up for You. Will You Stand Up for Us?
In my view, the statement is misleading. While the broad statistic is factually true, it is improperly applied to the race in question (as noted by several experts in the article) and the former Registrar of Voters who calls this a virtual tie. In a sense, it's propaganda. Mr. McCann is desirous of discouraging a recount for obvious reasons.
Don't some jurisdictions initiate an automatic recount when the margin is within a certain small percentage? With a vote this close, I would feel better as a voter if the Registrar's office initiated a recount regardless of whether it was triggered by the losing candidate.
And why does it cost over $1.00 per vote for a recount? (Estimate of $40,000 to count 37,000 votes). That's a large burden to place on the campaign for a city council seat, even in the county's second largest city.
It will be very interesting to see if the recount differs at all from the initial count. If so, I hope we see some good coverage of why those discrepancies occurred. And, why does it cost over $1.00 per vote for a recount?
What a sad state of affairs in Chula Vista with the "election" of John McCann in the Chula Vista City Council, a quick review of the Votes counted verses the total number of registered voters in the City of Chula Vista, (36,894 vs. 113,956), only 32.3% of registered voters, voted.
This means that no members of the new Chula Vista city council were elected with any type of mandate for what they stood for! Far worse the McCann election was only 16.15% of the citizens of the city, with 2 votes only being .0018%, I am sure he will boast that the public has spoken!
What does this mean?
It means there is a severe disconnect between the city and citizens caused by: no meaningful communication between the city and its citizens, special interests and money shaping policy in Chula Vista, and no media coverage of consequence at City Council Meetings or analysis of their policies or decisions.
Without better visibility of the council actions there will be no change in the way things are decided in Chula Vista.
People, living in a democracy requires some work and diligence of the public.
Mr. Grylls: Interesting point. According to the Secretary of State, 44.8% of registered voters cast ballots in San Diego County during this election. Clearly this was higher in some political subdivisions of our county and lower in others (e.g. Chula Vista). In theory, countywide, in close races, 25% of the registered voters could easily decide many races. Moreover, this doesn't include all the people with the right to vote, which would be substantially higher presumably.