I ran for board of education and it was an amazing experience. I went door to door in my small town, talked to hundreds of people, showed up at every town event wearing my blazer and nametag with "candidate for board of education". No BOE candidate before me had spent money on lawn signs - but they had to after me. I gave speeches, raised money, bought voter lists from the county and loaded them into our Oracle database at work (into my own DEV schema, of course, this was before I had cheap MySQL hosting) to identify the folks most likely to support me, used Google Maps and other mapping tools to map them out for personal visits.
And then I lost, and it was crushing. On election night when I stood in the election office and heard the precinct numbers come in one by one, I realized I'd never failed at anything significant before. But I'd do it all again - I will once my kids are older - it was one of the best experiences of my life.
Why? You've got no idea what his policies were! They could have been absolutely appalling, oppressive dystopian ideas, standing for everything you're against (I'm sure they weren't, exhilaration).
When you're running on your own against incumbents who've been in office for years (decades sometimes) you've really gotta work hard and build up the kind of contact data the big campaigns have easy access too. For example, I had trouble asking for people's phone numbers so I could call them (or robocall them) on election day - that was my own weakness, I bet someone with more sales skills could have done a better job there but I'm just an engineer. I had no e-mail addresses either. I should have also visited the retirement homes in town, I only went door to door. The churches never returned my calls but I did try to visit them. Lots of factors - I'm sure my South Asian name also lost me some votes but hey, I bet I can get past that next time.
Three things, their voting record, their party registration, and any demographic information you can figure out.
The voter lists I've seen in NJ and PA tell you what elections voters have voted in, so you can eliminate registered voters that don't bother to vote. Additionally, in NJ, the school board elections were on a different date (in the spring) than the general election, so you could really target the 3-4% of voters who actually bothered to vote for school board.
Party registration is provided and be helpful if you want to position yourself as the democrat or republican, even if the race is technically nonpartisan.
If you want to target particular ethnic groups (latino, south asian, korean, chinese) you can do searches for common first or last names. Grouping by address can help you figure if there's a family living here - you also get date of birth - and maybe they've got a kid that just graduated from high school and might be more interested in a particular school issue. Some basic SQL skills can go a long way here.
A google search turns up this website that claims to have voter lists by political district, party affiliation, gender, ethnicity, wealth, among other things.
I ran for office (Redmond, WA City Council) and got 39% of the vote, and I didn't do nearly as much (press releases and the like) as the author did. I showed up for the "voter's forums" and the like, and the newspaper endorsement interviews. I spent money on yard signs, and spent many an evening putting them out. And I went door-to-door, using voter data to better target the doors upon which I knocked.
I do wonder how much you get for just having your name on the ballot. Here's what I told my wife during the campaign: "meh, I'm only running so that my opponent doesn't run unopposed. But if I weren't running against him, I'd vote for him." IOW, my opponent was a decent guy who held office for mostly the right reasons. And I still got 39%.
Anyone can run for office, fill out the form, pay the fee. How much you want to do after that is up to you. But if you don't have a track record (volunteer for the Parks board, head up the local trail improvement group, etc.), you won't get an endorsement. No one in the local political "machine" knows you. So go buy some signs, put on your walking shoes, and start knocking on doors. Have a few platform items that you think are important, and stick to those without getting distracted by things like "are you an R or a D?" for a non-partisan office. Ask questions of those you meet. What do they think is important? Do you think it's important enough to have a response?
Mainly, have fun. If you don't like meeting new people (which I don't), aren't able to think on your feet (I am), politics might not be for you. But despite my aversion to people, I found it fascinating and kind of fun, interspersed with large periods of boredom.
You would have to run candidates with different names, in this case we have a Jewish name (author) running against a somewhat Hispanic name, I imagine some percentage of people would vote just on perception of ethnicity.
I noticed that there doesn't seem to be a Republican candidate in the race. Not to degrade the author's efforts, but I wonder how much of the vote for the author was due to their being the only non-Democratic candidate.
Edit: I only mention this because "get 31% of the vote" is part of the headline. Part of it may be running in a race unopposed by the other major party.
Edit 2: My mistake, the percentage was part of the thread's original title, not the author's chosen title.
if counties in Florida are like certain Northern states there are agreements in place between the two parties to run or not run in some districts. Granted in some there is no point to run but then that is an area where its allowed to give the other guy face time.
Watching my cousin go over the ins and outs of moving from city to county was more than enlightening for me, as in frustrating and aggravating. For the most part who gets the seat is all about connections or worse, to get someone out of the way to a place many will think them harmless. There is also "owed a seat" mentality.
tl;dr two party politics has got to go. the level of manipulation at the local level is shocking and more widespread than many understand. there are break out candidates but even some of them are engineered
In my experience, Florida is pretty evenly divided.
Sure, there's the rural Republican areas, the urban Democratic areas, conservative retired communities, and the liberal immigrant neighborhoods, but I still doubt there's much of what you describe.
There are so many states each with their own unique political cultures it's very decentralized and "the party" isn't a unified entity as much as it is a group of people forced together by the historical accident of the two party system (just look at how many competing factions and ideologies there are like the tea party, evangelicals, libertarians, neocons, etc.). It's loose hierarchy that is largely held together by networks of donors and their relationships within communities. Nothing really stops you from running as a "Republican" or "Democrat" without support from party leadership except at the federal and state level because local election laws don't generally have the two party system baked into them.
Assuming the local/regional party machine backs him and provides campaign funds, he'll likely be required to at least call some major donors soliciting support for other campaigns that the relevant leadership is interested in or for the party organization itself. Congressmen at the state and federal level spend an absurd amount of time doing these calls on behalf of their own and others' campaigns because those elections are expensive to fight but at the local level, the elections are far cheaper and the allegiances to parties are looser. He would have to cater to his supporters in order to get their support for the next election but he wouldn't be obligated to do anything.
I know that 31% is not insignificant but... it's not great either. If this was an incumbent, then there's probably a fair number of people who would've voted for _whoever_ the opposition candidate was.
I do like the idea of always running opposition candidates though, to force the other person to raise & spend campaign funds.
>I do like the idea of always running opposition candidates though, to force the other person to raise & spend campaign funds.
Needing to raise campaign funds is a big issue. Some congressman feel that it's almost a full time job calling donors. I rather not have that scenario and have them actually reading and considering legislation.
Soooooo to give you an argument ad absurdum, wouldn't it be ideal to have a monarchy/dictatorship so that our leaders can spend time thinking about legislation rather than those pesky elections?
Another alternative would be longer terms. Like 10-year, 20-year, or life-long terms?
I'm trying to think of an honest solution to the problem you've raised and I haven't found one that seems better. Maybe donors should be more humble, and be okay with an aid-to-the-legislator calling them for money?
I know that 31% is not insignificant but... it's not great either. If this was an incumbent, then there's probably a fair number of people who would've voted for _whoever_ the opposition candidate was.
See my other comment somewhere in this thread: IMO, the author got their arse kicked. I received 39%, didn't do nearly as much as the author, and I consider that a pretty solid defeat (but conveniently just shy of what I consider an arse kicking <g>). Somewhere there must be a study with hard numbers, but I figure X% just because I wasn't the other guy, Y% from voters who just randomly chose because they didn't really pay attention to the race, and 0.Z% from those that just screwed up the ballot. Leaving me with, I dunno, 20-25% who actually thought I was the better choice based on what they knew of me and the conversations we had. That's not a very good number. :-)
Not to take away from the main point, though. You want to run for office? You think you can do a better job? Then go do it. The barriers can be quite low for local offices, a bit higher for state offices. You'll get your arse kicked the first time around most likely. That's called "experience" and if you truly want to hold office, you'll be worlds ahead for next time. Most importantly, the vote is not a mandate on you as a person. I was soundly defeated, and that's fine: the people have spoken, and they said "come back in a few years when your better at this". Or they said, "the incumbent is doing a fine job, we see no reason to take a chance on someone new." But I never took it to be, "we just don't like you personally, mikestew."
In two-candidate races without write-ins, the minimum that any candidate got was 18.22%, and from scanning the numbers it feels like the median is in mid-30%s.
//edit also if someone at a PAC is reading, what they should really do is an analysis comparing campaign funding vs. votes received. Find the candidates that are making the most impact with the least amount of money. The candidates you agree with are the people who need support next election, and the candidates you disagree with are the dark horses you need to watch out for.
> I lost, but I got 31% of the vote and I only spent $3000. My opponent got 69% of the vote and spent $100,000.
I could be wrong, but I highly suspect that the curve connecting those two points isn't linear, and going from 30->40% is a lot harder than going from 10->30%.
For those interested in running for office in your area, https://www.runforoffice.org is a great resource to find open positions and get you started. I'm not affiliated with them, just think they're a great cause.
mix socially, especially with those of higher social status.
synonyms: associate, mix, fraternize, socialize, keep company, spend time, go around, mingle, consort, network, rub shoulders, rub elbows;
Shea capitalized the term every time he used it on the blog, and specifically mentioned tables and events. It made it sound like there's a specific event or organization beyond the generic term.
Readit News
And then I lost, and it was crushing. On election night when I stood in the election office and heard the precinct numbers come in one by one, I realized I'd never failed at anything significant before. But I'd do it all again - I will once my kids are older - it was one of the best experiences of my life.
Why? You've got no idea what his policies were! They could have been absolutely appalling, oppressive dystopian ideas, standing for everything you're against (I'm sure they weren't, exhilaration).
Everyone should run for office at least once.
They should also lobby (try to get a law changed) too. Ideally, before running for office.
what info is on those lists that you can use to identify supporters?
The voter lists I've seen in NJ and PA tell you what elections voters have voted in, so you can eliminate registered voters that don't bother to vote. Additionally, in NJ, the school board elections were on a different date (in the spring) than the general election, so you could really target the 3-4% of voters who actually bothered to vote for school board.
Party registration is provided and be helpful if you want to position yourself as the democrat or republican, even if the race is technically nonpartisan.
If you want to target particular ethnic groups (latino, south asian, korean, chinese) you can do searches for common first or last names. Grouping by address can help you figure if there's a family living here - you also get date of birth - and maybe they've got a kid that just graduated from high school and might be more interested in a particular school issue. Some basic SQL skills can go a long way here.
http://www.completecampaigns.com/voter-lists-online.asp
Some exemptions (not listed) for judges, victims, witness protection. YMMV depending on jurisdiction.
I do wonder how much you get for just having your name on the ballot. Here's what I told my wife during the campaign: "meh, I'm only running so that my opponent doesn't run unopposed. But if I weren't running against him, I'd vote for him." IOW, my opponent was a decent guy who held office for mostly the right reasons. And I still got 39%.
Anyone can run for office, fill out the form, pay the fee. How much you want to do after that is up to you. But if you don't have a track record (volunteer for the Parks board, head up the local trail improvement group, etc.), you won't get an endorsement. No one in the local political "machine" knows you. So go buy some signs, put on your walking shoes, and start knocking on doors. Have a few platform items that you think are important, and stick to those without getting distracted by things like "are you an R or a D?" for a non-partisan office. Ask questions of those you meet. What do they think is important? Do you think it's important enough to have a response?
Mainly, have fun. If you don't like meeting new people (which I don't), aren't able to think on your feet (I am), politics might not be for you. But despite my aversion to people, I found it fascinating and kind of fun, interspersed with large periods of boredom.
Easy way to test this is to have another friend run for the same office, and do zero campaigning.
Well, "easy"; at the very least, you'd know which paperwork to fill out given that you're doing it as well.
Edit: I only mention this because "get 31% of the vote" is part of the headline. Part of it may be running in a race unopposed by the other major party.
Edit 2: My mistake, the percentage was part of the thread's original title, not the author's chosen title.
Watching my cousin go over the ins and outs of moving from city to county was more than enlightening for me, as in frustrating and aggravating. For the most part who gets the seat is all about connections or worse, to get someone out of the way to a place many will think them harmless. There is also "owed a seat" mentality.
tl;dr two party politics has got to go. the level of manipulation at the local level is shocking and more widespread than many understand. there are break out candidates but even some of them are engineered
Sure, there's the rural Republican areas, the urban Democratic areas, conservative retired communities, and the liberal immigrant neighborhoods, but I still doubt there's much of what you describe.
EDIT: Honestly thought Shea was a female name. Oops.
Assuming the local/regional party machine backs him and provides campaign funds, he'll likely be required to at least call some major donors soliciting support for other campaigns that the relevant leadership is interested in or for the party organization itself. Congressmen at the state and federal level spend an absurd amount of time doing these calls on behalf of their own and others' campaigns because those elections are expensive to fight but at the local level, the elections are far cheaper and the allegiances to parties are looser. He would have to cater to his supporters in order to get their support for the next election but he wouldn't be obligated to do anything.
I do like the idea of always running opposition candidates though, to force the other person to raise & spend campaign funds.
Needing to raise campaign funds is a big issue. Some congressman feel that it's almost a full time job calling donors. I rather not have that scenario and have them actually reading and considering legislation.
Another alternative would be longer terms. Like 10-year, 20-year, or life-long terms?
I'm trying to think of an honest solution to the problem you've raised and I haven't found one that seems better. Maybe donors should be more humble, and be okay with an aid-to-the-legislator calling them for money?
See my other comment somewhere in this thread: IMO, the author got their arse kicked. I received 39%, didn't do nearly as much as the author, and I consider that a pretty solid defeat (but conveniently just shy of what I consider an arse kicking <g>). Somewhere there must be a study with hard numbers, but I figure X% just because I wasn't the other guy, Y% from voters who just randomly chose because they didn't really pay attention to the race, and 0.Z% from those that just screwed up the ballot. Leaving me with, I dunno, 20-25% who actually thought I was the better choice based on what they knew of me and the conversations we had. That's not a very good number. :-)
Not to take away from the main point, though. You want to run for office? You think you can do a better job? Then go do it. The barriers can be quite low for local offices, a bit higher for state offices. You'll get your arse kicked the first time around most likely. That's called "experience" and if you truly want to hold office, you'll be worlds ahead for next time. Most importantly, the vote is not a mandate on you as a person. I was soundly defeated, and that's fine: the people have spoken, and they said "come back in a few years when your better at this". Or they said, "the incumbent is doing a fine job, we see no reason to take a chance on someone new." But I never took it to be, "we just don't like you personally, mikestew."
In two-candidate races without write-ins, the minimum that any candidate got was 18.22%, and from scanning the numbers it feels like the median is in mid-30%s.
//edit also if someone at a PAC is reading, what they should really do is an analysis comparing campaign funding vs. votes received. Find the candidates that are making the most impact with the least amount of money. The candidates you agree with are the people who need support next election, and the candidates you disagree with are the dark horses you need to watch out for.
I could be wrong, but I highly suspect that the curve connecting those two points isn't linear, and going from 30->40% is a lot harder than going from 10->30%.
Deleted Comment
https://timcanova.com/
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida%27s_23rd_Congressional_Distr...