On Nov. 5, Oakland, California residents voted overwhelmingly to recall the city’s far-left mayor Democratic Mayor Sheng Thao, who was elected two years ago using ranked-choice voting. Since then, she has been blamed for increasing crime and disorder in the city. This was the first successful recall of a mayor in Oakland’s history, with 61.6% of voters in favor of removing Mayor Thao and only 38.4% opposed.
The recall wasn’t just an indictment of the failures of progressive governance; it was an indictment of ranked-choice voting, or RCV.
Thao’s win in 2022 was made possible by RCV. The novel election system creates winners out of losers by allowing a candidate who received more second-place (or third-place, fourth-place, etc.) votes to win even if another candidate had more first-place votes. This is exactly how Thao squeaked out a 677-vote win.
Her opponent, former Democratic Oakland City Councilmen Loren Taylor, received the most first-place votes but was under 50 percent in the initial round. Because of that, Thao was able to win in the ninth round. And while she had 50.3 percent of the remaining votes, that total was just 45.6 percent of the votes cast in the first round (11,787 “exhausted” ballots were excluded by the final round).
Taylor criticized the complex election process in his concession speech. “Ranked-choice voting as it is isn’t working,” Taylor told a reporter. He noted the high number of discarded ballots, pointing out that this went against the promises made by advocates when they convinced the city to adopt RCV.
Since then, the quality of life for Oakland residents has decreased dramatically. Reports of violent incidents increased 21% last year compared to 2022, and robberies jumped 38%. Instead of aggressively targeting violent gang members, Mayor Thao focused on “ceasefires” and misleading crime statistics to take the heat off herself.
Thao’s entire mayorship can be blamed on the complexities of ranked-choice voting. A system that allows a candidate to win by receiving the most second place votes and disenfranchises voters by eliminating their ballots should be outlawed in state, local and federal elections.
One of the last mayors elected before Oakland made the switch to RCV was former California Gov. Jerry Brown — a ranked-choice voting critic. As governor, he vetoed a bill to allow all cities in the Golden State to use RCV. And while he was mayor of Oakland, Brown reduced crime, grew the city’s population and expanded charter schools, a far cry from what Thao has done.
Last June, Thao’s home was raided by the FBI. Her failures led to the campaign “Oakland United to recall Thao,” which collected more than 40,000 signatures to initiate a recall. The recall campaign was supported by the Oakland Police Officers’ Association, former Democratic Mayor Libby Schaaf, prominent local business leaders, and even Elon Musk.
Ranked-choice voting is promoted as a way to elect popular, moderate candidates. Yet before it was adopted, Oakland actually had moderate, effective mayors. What RCV actually gave Oakland was an unpopular mayor who is now the first to be recalled in the city’s history. There is talk that Oakland’s next move will be to repeal ranked-choice voting. If not, they could end up right back where they started.
Harry Roth is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and the director of outreach at Save Our States, where he manages the Stop RCV Coalition.
Since the results of the 2024 election came in, much of the focus has been on President-elect Donald Trump’s historic win—and rightfully so. Trump won every single swing state in a massive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, and he beat her in the popular vote too.
But Kamala Harris wasn’t the only significant loser to come out of November’s election.
Here in Arizona, teachers’ unions and other anti-school choice groups, like Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSAZ), made the 2024 election a referendum on school choice. And they lost big!
Much of their work began earlier this year, when Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs came into legislative session (just like she did in 2023) with her top priority being to regulate the wildly popular Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program out of existence. But it didn’t work. Despite the noise from Hobbs, legislative Democrats, the legacy media, the teachers’ unions, and other anti-school choice groups, only minor changes were made to the ESA program through the budget, with most of it remaining untouched.
This failure fell on the heels of other similar failures…
Though most attention was directed at the top of the ticket in the 2024 election, many groups on the Left waged high stakes on flipping Arizona’s barely Republican-controlled legislature.
In the two years since the 2022 election, when Republicans dwindled to 31 members of the 60-member House and 16 members in the 30-member Senate, Democrats have been busily planning and building their election takeover. After sweeping the top 3 statewide offices, including the Governorship, 2024 was the inflection point in the story of how Arizona went from red – to purple – to blue.
But that didn’t happen.
Under the leadership of Governor Hobbs and an orbit of well-funded organizations that raised upwards of $10 million to target key swing districts in Arizona, the Left failed to secure their legislative victories. Instead, the Republican-controlled Arizona House and Senate, in fact, expanded their majorities. Despite being outspent in every single race, Republicans now hold 33 members in the House and 17 members in the Senate, a small but meaningful gain. It’s a disaster for Katie Hobbs, who is already fighting low favorability and criticism by her own party for her inability to best Republican legislative leadership and rack up any wins for the Left’s agenda…
Democrats in the last election insisted that re-electing them was necessary to “protect our democracy.” But it turns out that for many of them, democracy only deserves protection when the democratic process produces their preferred result.
Prop. 314 was proposed to allow police to arrest immigrants who don’t cross the border at a legal point of entry and to deny public benefits to illegal immigrants. It was approved by over 60% of the voters. Sounds like democracy at work, right?
Not to Phoenix councilmember-elect Anna Hernandez, who vowed that the “Phoenix Council must move immediately to protect immigrant refugee residents in the city from the violence of 314… I am ready for this fight.” Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, like many others, was also on board with the resistance, promising that neither the Phoenix Police Department nor “any city resources whatsoever” would be involved in enforcing this particular law. So much for respecting the democratic process.
Yet more Americans are beginning to realize our immigration policy sorely needs major corrections. In 1995, the Chairwoman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, Barbara Jordan, herself a civil rights icon, told Congress, “Deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summarized in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave…For the system to be credible, people have to be deported at the end of the process.”
She’s right. There is no way to fix Kamala’s “broken immigration system,” (her words) that doesn’t involve deportation to undo the damage done.
Here’s where we are. The low hanging fruit is the 1.3 million aliens who have been given their due process and are legally qualified for deportation. They are part of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “non-detain docket” of 7 million aliens, including criminals, who have not yet been processed but otherwise are eligible for deportation. Congress already has authorized ICE to deport all these individuals.
The obstacle is that their “recalcitrant” home countries refuse to provide the travel documents needed for the return of their own nationals. (Hmm. Wonder why.). The Supreme Court has ruled that all those, even the criminals, who are not deported within six months must be released.
However, under U.S. law, once the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has notified the State Department that a foreign country “denies or unreasonably delays” the return of its nationals, the Secretary of State must order consular officials to discontinue granting all visas to that country. That would surely get the attention of “recalcitrant” like China and India. Yet the Biden/Harris administration, ever loathe to stem the inflow of future Democrats, refused.
Despite the massive surge at the border following the 2021 inauguration, fewer than half as many aliens were removed by the Biden/Harris administration as during the previous four years. Instead, they alternated between laughably claiming the border was safely closed and that the only way to “fix” the problem was a comprehensive amnesty program combined with greater funding at the border but only to expedite the processing of immigrants.
There are other remedies that would mitigate the damage. The DHS secretary is allowed by law to require all aliens without a green card to be registered and fingerprinted. This would not only get a handle on the “gotaways” and criminals who have melted into the population. History suggests it would also trigger voluntary departures.
Finally, we could enforce the E-Verify program and compel employers to check on their workers’ immigration status. Many employers prefer cheap, compliant employees, but the long-term costs to our nation are too great. Absent the economic incentives, both public and private, few illegal immigrants would remain.
We are inviting many long-term economic and political problems by accommodating a cohort that will inevitably demand increased government support as they age. But more importantly, the Rule of Law is our legacy as Americans, the key to our freedom and prosperity. Ignoring the law at our border is a horrible mistake.
Border control and deportation don’t require more funds, more laws, or military action. It is a matter of simply enforcing the law for the protection of us all.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Starmer’s remarks came as he disembarked from a carbon-spewing jet upon arrival in Azerbaijan to attend the UN-sponsored COP29 climate conference.
The annual COP conferences, remember, are where the world’s elites gather each year to discuss ways to leverage climate-alarm dogma as a means of destroying western democracy and trapping the world’s masses in energy poverty while they consume $1,000 Wagyu steaks and $2,000 bottles of wine over dinner.
“I have repeatedly emphasized the importance of global leadership when it comes to the climate challenge,” said Starmer, “and therefore it is very important for me to come to COP… I see the climate challenge as a huge opportunity for the UK if we get it right, and that is why we have made it one of our missions to have clean power by 2030.”
Among the means Starmer’s government is using to show “global leadership” on the climate alarm front is to provide heavy subsidies for costly, low-efficiency offshore wind farms and cover up vast swaths of the UK’s farmlands and countryside with enormous solar arrays. Starmer’s government has simultaneously presided over the closing of the UK’s last remaining coal power plant and one of its last steelmaking factories as part of what appears to be a focused effort to deindustrialize its once-powerful economy.
Trump has made it crystal clear that his approach to energy policy will be diametrically opposite that of Starmer’s Labor government. Trump has already said he plans to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate agreement again, an action he took during his first term, but which was reversed by President Joe Biden.
Trump has also laid out plans to re-industrialize America’s economy with a carrot-and-stick approach that will include incentives for companies building new factories and assembly plants in the United States and imposing tariffs on those who choose to invest in capacity overseas. In a recent pre-election interview, Trump detailed plans to address instability and capacity shortages on the U.S. electric grid by implementing policies to speed up permitting and building of new natural gas and nuclear power generation.
“We have to produce massive electricity that we don’t have. But the environmental impact statements won’t allow us to do that. The rules and regulations that we currently have won’t allow us to do any of it,” Trump said. “But if I’m president, we’ll be able to do it and we’ll do it through natural gas, which is clean. And we’ll do it through primarily natural gas and nuclear.”
While on the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly promised to bring back his first-term policies designed to stimulate the domestic oil-and-gas industry and return the United States to the position of “energy dominance” it enjoyed under his previous administration.
In kicking off the COP29 festivities, Azerbaijan leader Ilham Aliyev created a stir among the climate zealots who make up the preponderance of attendees by appearing to endorse the Trump approach.
Referring to oil and natural gas as a “gift of God,” the Azerbaijani President said, “Countries should not be blamed for having them and should not be blamed for bringing these resources to the market because the market needs them. The people need them.”
At another point, Aliyev appeared to lecture western elitists like Starmer, saying: “Unfortunately double standards, a habit to lecture other countries and political hypocrisy became kind of modus operandi for some politicians, state-controlled NGOs and fake news media in some Western countries.”
In an interview at the summit, Starmer displayed a shocking lack of self-awareness by claiming his government has no plans to “start telling people how to live their lives. We are not going to start dictating to people what they do.”
That is of course exactly what Starmer is doing, and exactly the sort of thing Trump plans to avoid doing regardless of any demands from the globalist climate-alarm industry. Americans stand to be the main beneficiaries from the contrast in policy approach.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
How do you waste $15 million? Just ask the folks over at the Make Elections Fair Committee. Last week, their insane attempt to force a California-style elections system of ranked choice voting and jungle primaries went down in flames. Prop 140 failed miserably with nearly 60 percent of the electorate voting “No.” And it wasn’t for lack of funding.
With a huge amount of money coming from the pockets of out-of-state billionaires, the Make Elections Fair Committee spent at least $15 million—giving them a 20:1 spending advantage. That’s right. For every $1 spent trying to defeat the initiative, the Prop 140 committee spent $20 trying to pass it! And they still lost by a wide margin!
That’s legendary. If any business idea ever failed that badly, it would be banished and never spoken of again. And that’s exactly what should happen with ranked choice voting and its ugly cousin jungle primaries (which was already overwhelmingly rejected by Arizona voters back in 2012)…
