Complicated election system hinders voting
Regarding “Apathy reigns in California” (Insight, June 12): The editorial placed too much of the blame on the voters and not enough blame on the institutions. It is undeniable that California had one of the worst voter turnouts, but that is an indictment of the state and the nation’s convoluted electoral system.
Let’s just look at how other countries conduct their elections. Australia recently had one, and turnout is usually about 90% because voting is mandatory. If an Australian does not vote, they receive a $20 fine. If they do but dislike all of the candidates, just submit a blank ballot.
In the United Kingdom, all local elections typically occur on the same day, meaning everyone in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales votes all at once.
How would voter turnout change in the United States if we implemented mandatory voting rules or required that all 50 states conduct their elections on the same day? One thing we will know is every American will make their feelings known all at once and have a better indication of where they want this country to go.
Jerry Cupat, San Diego
People want solutions
Regarding “Ousting Boudin voters’ solution to dysfunction” (Bay Area & Business, June 9): As usual, Heather Knight has her finger on the pulse of San Francisco residents. Her column should be required reading for all city officials.
She accurately notes that most voters didn’t reject Chesa Boudin because of the influence of right-wing billionaires or because they are against criminal justice reform. Nor do they blame Boudin for all the city’s problems.
The real lesson is that people are tired of government guided by ideology instead of an attempt to find practical solutions to real world problems. Rather than trying to create a utopia, the philosophy of governing should be simple: the greatest good for the greatest number. That is, with the finite amount of resources provided in the city budget, spend the money in a way that will contribute to the general welfare of all San Francisco and to the benefit of most of its citizens.
The main purpose of any government is to provide safety and order, and in the in the eyes of the voters, our city leaders are failing at this. They want pragmatic progressivism, if you will, and, in Knight’s words, a city government that works. Edward Chmelewski, San Francisco
Keep last call at 2 a.m.
I am dismayed that our lawmakers are wasting their time discussing bar opening hours while citizens are left to deal with inflation, lawlessness, COVID and a myriad of other challenges.
State Sen. Scott Wiener’s assertion that passing his bill (SB930) for keeping bars open until 4 a.m. will somehow propel our cities into the league of New York or London is laughable.
San Francisco in particular lacks the basics of security, cleanliness and reliable public transport that are hallmarks of any world-class city. I assume that Wiener and Assembly Member Matt Haney have become immune to the sight of broken glass and the stench of urine that permeate San Francisco.
What upsets me most is that overworked first responders will bear the brunt of additional brawls, anti-social behavior and carnage on the roads. And, of course, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.
It is ironic that in this regard Haney and Wiener are in full-alignment with the gun lobby: I have a right to do what I want when I want. And others can deal with the impact on society.
I can only hope that Gov. Gavin Newsom reigns in the ludicrous fringe and gets the lawmakers to stop fiddling about while California is literally and figuratively burning.