A Better Cambridge has announced their endorsements for City Council. Incumbents Burhan Azeem, Marc McGovern, Sumbul Siddiqui, Denise Simmons have been endorsed; newcomers Adrienne Klein, Joe McGuirk, Frtanz Pierre, Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, and Ayesha Wilson have also received the endorsement.

If housing is your number 1 priority, these are the folks you want on your ballot this fall.

@crschmidt I wonder if this housing-first council would uphold the CSO
@bikepedantic @crschmidt I count 6 who I know signed the bike pledge. 2 who I know didn’t, and 1 I'm not sure about.
@dhidalgo @bikepedantic @crschmidt I’d like to see a Venn diagram of “good on housing” and “good on bikes”
@Ofsevit @bikepedantic @crschmidt Off the top of my head, I think Burhan, Adrienne, Marc, Sumbul, Jivan, and Frantz will also uphold the bike safety ordinance. Joe McGuirk and Denise Simmons would not (to what extent, not sure). I don't know where Ayesha Wilson stands. That said, I think the Bike Safety people are going be releasing the full list of candidates who signed their pledge soon.

@dhidalgo @Ofsevit @bikepedantic Yes, I think "Good on Housing" and "Best on Bikes" is Burhan, Adrienne, Marc, Sumbul, Frantz, Jivan.

Denise and Joe run against bikes, and I think Ayesha is a "bike lanes are fine in general, so long as they're not on my street" kind of person.

@crschmidt eager to see the CBS list. That overlap in the Venn diagram is important:

If we build more housing without building/operating non-car networks, we get the 'more-cars' the nimbys scream about.

If we build the bike network without building more city, we're building a moat that keeps people out.

Hate to have to choose between them, because one without the other is failure.

@dhidalgo @Ofsevit

@bikepedantic @dhidalgo @Ofsevit Yep. In reality, the most achievable political way to build both includes (unfortunately) some people who oppose one or the other; for those of us who support both, it's extra important to make sure that we drive support to people who support bikes as well as housing.
@crschmidt 100%. And it is encouraging that there are 6-7 viable "both" candidates! @dhidalgo @Ofsevit
@bikepedantic @crschmidt @dhidalgo @Ofsevit I want the people in the intersection of those two sets to win; I just wish I had a better understanding of how to strategically order my ranked-choice ballot.
@Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @crschmidt @Ofsevit I wouldn't worry too much about strategy. That's one of the good things about our system: votes to non-viable candidates will get distributed to others.
@dhidalgo @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @Ofsevit yep. Just rank folks in the order of people you want to be on the council most. If you don’t have opinions, just rank the candidates in any order, or ask a friend for their order.
@dhidalgo @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @crschmidt @Ofsevit ehh, voting for someone who is going to win in the first couple of rounds is probably a wasted vote
@DemonHusky @dhidalgo @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @Ofsevit if you _only_ rank them, sure, but so long as you vote for more people, it’s not wasted.
@crschmidt @dhidalgo @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @Ofsevit Votes are randomly selected to be transferred once a candidate reaches the threshold. That means is you vote for Sumbul #1, you only have like a 50% chance after the first round to have your next candidate get your vote. Whereas voting for someone on the edge, you are far more likely to help them out, knowing Sumbul is going to be the first person to hit threshold.
@DemonHusky @crschmidt @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @Ofsevit Yes, it's true that there is a bit of randomness in the transfers, but given the numbers we are talking about, I don't see how this kind of strategy would actually affect who gets elected. It would require a ton of coordination to pull it off. But maybe I'm not thinking about it the right way.

@dhidalgo @crschmidt @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @Ofsevit I'm sure there has never been an election that was actually affected by the random selection, but the argument that your vote doesn't matter sounds like an argument to not vote and I just can't get behind that.

The way our system is set up, most incumbents are re-elected and some of them easily. If your top vote is for one of them, your ballot is probably less effecting on the overall election than if you vote for someone lower

@DemonHusky @crschmidt @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @Ofsevit I'm definitely not trying to say your vote doesn't matter! Popular incumbents win because lots of voters like them (for whatever reason), so if it's one of your votes that helps them win in the first round, I don't see a problem with that.

And interestingly, incumbents actually lose much more frequently in Cambridge than places with different electoral systems, as far as I know.

@dhidalgo all i know is, i will defend Burhan with my life and my #1 vote @DemonHusky @crschmidt @Etherealcolburn @Ofsevit

@bikepedantic @dhidalgo @DemonHusky @crschmidt @Etherealcolburn Yeah, Burhan and Marc are my top two, I think Burhan is slightly less viable than Marc. Probably in that order.

Then Jivan and Adrienne because they're probably more on the edge, then maybe Frantz and then Sumbul, because she's probably in anyway. (I don't know Frantz that well.)

Theoretically I could go JABMFS to reduce the likelihood of my vote being wasted but I like B and M so they're 1 and 2.

@dhidalgo @crschmidt @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @Ofsevit If you are trying to tell a casual voter how to strategize, just telling them to vote for who they like in order and have a handful on your ballot is great advice.

For an audience who is highly engaged (e.g. this convo), saying that your ballot is likely less significantly effect the election voting for very popular incumbents above more marginal candidates is accurate.

@DemonHusky @dhidalgo @crschmidt @bikepedantic @Ofsevit Thanks to all who responded. I have a much better sense of what to do now. I always forget exactly how our system works and need to relearn it for every election…
@DemonHusky @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @crschmidt @Ofsevit How so? If a candidate wins in the first round, for example, then the surplus votes are transferred to other candidates who haven't won yet
@dhidalgo @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @crschmidt @Ofsevit ~2000 votes don't get transferred (~10% of all voters)
@dhidalgo @Etherealcolburn @bikepedantic @crschmidt @Ofsevit fun fact, our system is non-deterministic, there is a random drawing involved in selecting which ballots get transferred
@Ofsevit i'll probably make one, because that's very very likely how i will vote
@dhidalgo @crschmidt
@bikepedantic @Ofsevit @crschmidt That would be great. Anything would be better than the CCC's bizarro world venn diagram:
@dhidalgo every good graphic should raise more questions than answers. what the what. @Ofsevit @crschmidt

@dhidalgo @bikepedantic @crschmidt Corporate wants you to find the differences between that image and this one:

(Also, I love how CCC is a local group and ABC isn't)

@Ofsevit @dhidalgo @bikepedantic FWIW, “ABC is part of the National YIMBY Deep State” or whatever is the way they claim that, even though it’s obviously completely ridiculous.

@crschmidt @dhidalgo @bikepedantic probably part of the Bicycle Lobby, too.

Evidently there's a bunch of developer money out there but I haven't seen it yet.

@Ofsevit @crschmidt @dhidalgo @bikepedantic Don't see how there can possibly be "developer money" in a city that barely allows anything to be build...