Garamendi is the best choice for people issues. He’s termed out, experienced, and has good bi partisan support.

Oregon has been doing mail voting on a larger scale than we have and I would be interested in some follow up on what affect it has had on turnout, initial registration, and other aspects that we can learn from.

Well argued on the silly “domino theory ergo no current office-holder” argument, re: CD-10. To pile on, a special election doubtless will occur no matter which of the two current state legislators win the race. (In fact, to draw out this hypothetical ad absurdum, electing State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier likely would produce TWO special elections, assuming State Assem. Joan Buchanan decided to pursue DeSaulnier’s seat and won. This is hardly an impossible scenario since the Democratic “primary” likely will be splintered and close, regardless of who wins, between the four most well-known candidates: Buchanan, DeSaulnier, and Garamendi. A very narrow loss by Buchanan would be a powerful argument for a quick turnaround candidacy for the vacant senate seat. Similarly, a narrow loss for Anthony Woods to Buchanan or DeSaulnier might be enough to hopefully prompt him to consider state legislative service.)

In the final analysis, I appreciate Registrar Weir’s efforts to save money on holding elections. But folks (including journalists) who object to the cost of the tools of representative democracy (which is never “free”, pun intended) as an example of wasteful government spending are barking up the wrong tree. I see arguments in favor of the state reimbursing counties and localities in greater sums for the costs of holding elections generally … but given that additional funds from the State of California to pay for ANYTHING seem like trying to squeeze lemonade out of a rock, I think the cost of holding a free and fair election is a price well worth paying. It’s surely preferable to the drama and problems posed by gubernatorial appointments of, for example, U.S. senators (see, e.g., Illinois and New York in 2009).

Well to avoid the above trigger, don’t vote for anyone who currently holds elective office to fill the CD10 seat.

If neither wins the CD10 seat, then no additional special election is needed.

Seems flawless to me…

Steve Mick, your “solution” is flawed. The “domino theory” scenario would only be triggered should Buchanan or De Saulnier win the CD10 contest. Garamendi’s win will not result in any further special election, at least not in this county. So if you are concerned about the cost of another special election, feel free to vote for the Lieutenant Governor as your next Congressman.

[Adriel, on the subject of besmirching a generation (even jokingly) as lacking in focus and seriousness, did you mean to drop in briefly and post such an ambiguous comment?

Which Steve's premise did you agree with? The head of elections Steve, or the guy with a mistaken theory on the "domino theory?" I suggest demonstrating your inattention to detail online isn't a wise campaign strategy, especially when you've positioned yourself as a web-savvy Gov 2.0 advocate.

If you get the basic facts wrong because you are quick to megaditto and agree with perceived allies online, rather than checking your facts and making an informed comment, how can the voters trust that you won't be misled by lobbyists or special interests?]

Solution: Don’t vote for anyone who currently holds elective office to fill the CD10 seat.