Seven get elected, but each voter gets to pick only five.

I stand corrected. 5 votes, for 7 slots. The vast majority of voters on general elections push the straight party ticket vote. Have the top 5 Dems ever lost in the last 40 years? Is it ever worth voting strategically if say only 10% of the typical Dem votes crossing party lines on a single vote out of 5 can easlity push the two guaranteed Republican votes one way or the other? If yes does this race merit that cross-party vote or what type of condition would merit it.

Vote for David Oh, unless of course you agree with Jack Kelly that Foie Gras is one of the most pressing matters in the City.

-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin

The top vote getter in the Dem primary Jim Kenney recieved 92,726 votes. Blondell Reynolds Brown who got the 5th place Dem slot recieved 50, 339. The difference between Jack Kelley and David Oh in the primary was 2,945 votes which equals 3% of the votes Kenney recieved in the Dem primary. Beyond that the mayoral primary was the exciting race in town and this general election will likely be a low turnout. A schockingly small number of cross party Dem votes could select who the 7th place vote getter is. Just something to consider.

I agree, there is almost no chance of toppling any of the 5 dems. Hell, there is almost no chance of toppling Frank Rizzo. However Jack Kelly can be defeated as he has had a very forgettable 4 years in office as well as an almost non existent legislative record. David OH from what I read is a great candidate who has given his life to Philly. Unlike Bill Green who got in off of name recognition and tons of money poured into the system by his dad. Word is that at campaign events he had to ask for directions, thats how little he knows this city....nonetheless he will be my councilman, but OH should be our councilman as well....just a thought.

I hope the progressive groups throw their weight behind David Oh. Let's not get hung up on party affiliation and work to get a great candidate into office.

A strong push of some progressives to vote for David Oh would make the difference. Few people cross over to vote for the Republicans in the November election (I know about Sam Katz, and still make that statement.) So the number of votes it would take to overtake Jack Kelly would be very small.

David is certainly deserving of the support of folks interested in this site. He is the exact kind of candidate -- other than that odd Republican label -- that most would want to support as a Dem.

Councilman Goode you are an oddity in a world of politics. You stand alone with no one to answer to except the public. You dont have to go through the ward leaders or make alliances to get elected. You have a gr8 reputation in our city and that alone carries you. Your other At large dems have to go through the system and lets face it...kiss some Brady @SS. And when they don't they get axed like Juan Ramos did.
David already has a great reputation (but faces hurdles with being Asian american and not having a recognizable last name). He's running as a republican to avoid the backroom deals and ward leader begging that other dems have to go through to just have a shot at getting a spot at a at large nomination. Surely we can all understand it from that aspect?

The Green Party nominated/endorsed Jacinth Brown Roberts for At-Large.

-----
I support Michael Nutter for mayor in November.

Because he voted for the anti-casino legislation. His only political support is the building trades.

He seemed shocked that they declined to endorse his candidacy, after that.

That's why he "violated" district council authority.

If Mark could figure out a way to end these digressions on his personal controversies (whether he thinks they're fair or not), that would be really, really useful.

If I were a conservative Republican operative, I'd be friggin' falling out of my leather chair laughing over the city's leading progressive website feeling SO compelled to spend time and energy debating $28K of expenditures by the one of the state's most progressive legislators.

This thread started as a thoughtful conversation about one of the few remaining interesting topics in city electoral politics: whether David Oh is worth an At-Large vote from progressive Philadelphia Democrats. That's a tough call for most of us, except Raideradam, who obviously favors a Republican government. (JOKE!!)

But let's figure out a way to move on! Otherewise, we're falling into a trap past progressive movements (and shoe-gazers of every stripe) repeatedly fall into: eating our own.

So what do we really know about David Oh's positions?

Thanking all the valiant candidates endorsed by Philly For Change, and looking forward with GREAT expectations to the first four years of MAYOR MICHAEL A. NUTTER!

As much fun as it is to go back and forth on Rep. Cohen's expense account, there are quite a few other threads discussing this topic.

I started this to discuss the fact that a very, very small portion of the Dems take a single vote and put it toward Oh (who is an outspoken supporter of gay and immigrant rights and by virtually all accounts a dedicated community activist and lawyer) then we can tip a seat that is guaranteed by law as going to "minority party" and do it without even breaking a sweat that any of the Dems will lose.

As I posted earlier, based on the vote totals from the May primary, "the tipping point" between Kelly and Oh is basically less than 3% of the vote that we would all normally put toward the 5 Dems. Let me repeat that - less than 3%! For me the idea that by taking a single vote of the 5 we are allotted and voting strategically in this one instance for a solid supporter the Log Cabin Republicans is somehow "supporting the Religous Right" - well that's patently absurd. We will have to live with 2 non-Dems on Council regardless of how we vote - its the law. If only a comparitive handful of us on the progressive side can easily tip the ballance from a do-nothing old-money Republican to a smart, respected, community activist, socially progressive (albeit fiscally conservative) one - well to me that makes sense.

My vote could make a big difference in tehe quality of leadership we see from City Council as a whole and by splitting a single vote I have no fear whatsoever of 3 Republicans getting into office. Its simply not going to happen. Heck if it will make some of you happy, i would gladly set up some sort of random number generating system so that each one of us "Progressives for Oh" alternates which single vote of 5 we split so no single Dem candidate is threatened with not being elected and we spread the less than 3% hit equally across the board.

Re: Why Oh is a Republican? Since he is an outspoken supporter of gay and immigrant rights and racial equality, I am assuming because he is fairly fiscally conservative. What does that really mean in terms of him serving on council as opposed to Kelly? Well, I know Kelly voted for the last "Arts and Neighborhood" bond initiative that Street offered up as sort of a bill to allow himself to give out some "legacy" funds for fun projects that we all like and love. The problem - it was a bond initiative. I consider myself a liberal Democrat both on social issues and on supporting a fairly redistributionist approach to running the ecnomy at a national level. I think the national government can and should do more to level the playing ground and opportunity between rich and poor. David Oh probably disagrees with me on that point at a national level. At a local level, our bond rating is in the tubes, PICA is going ballistic about the fact we have no 5 year fiscal plan and our ability to borrow money through bonds for real honest to goodnes infrastucture projects - like replacing the South St. Bridge and fixing the over taxed sewer system and flooding basements in No Libs and South Philly. We are over burdened with interest payments on bond initiatives for things that delived less than promised - like NTI. Bond intiatives for non-infrastucture items is at this point the equivalent taking out a 2nd mortgage to pay your electic bill - not smart.

For me if I have to have 2 Republicans on Council anyway - I actually want one who is progressive on social issues but who will stand up and make the case that maybe we should not borrow money through bond initiatives for things that we can concievably pay for through general revenue sources. Inother words only take out that 2nd mortgage for things like putting on a new roof or adding a guest room on the back of the house. At a city wide level, a socially progressive fiscal conservative voice - one who grew up in SW Philly and has won awards for pro-bono work giving legal advice to immigrants - if I realistically have to live with 2 Republicans representing me anyway, well damnit that's probably the Republican I would pick to represent me.

In terms of what David Oh would say are his key issues well he recently posted this on that other discussion forum:

This recent article explains many of my ideas and concerns for our city. I hope it will provide you with better insight into my campaign to make Philadelphia an international, world class city. At a later point, I would like to explain why I beleive it is crucial that we establish a 24-hour creative area in out city to retain and attract innovative/creative people.

Thank you,
David Oh
[B]Oh Brings Global Perspective To City Council Race[/B]

[I]By: Bradley Vasoli , The Bulletin
The Evening Bulletin, 05/10/2007[/I]
Philadelphia - David Oh, one of five Republicans vying for an at-large seat on City Council, is running to modernize and internationalize commerce in the city. That, he says, will require the city to do on a smaller scale what America has historically done on a larger one: Retain talented residents and valuable companies and bring in new ones.
Oh says he believes that the reluctance of businesses to headquarter themselves in Philadelphia owes to an inhospitable environment where taxes are too high, crime is out of control, population is declining and corruption pervades the corridors of municipal government.
"We really have to embrace the future," Oh told The Bulletin yesterday. "People have seen their jobs go, their taxes are up. This is very frightening."
Oh refers to America's long history of newcomers arriving on its shores, and says Philadelphia must relive that story on a microcosmic level, since it has seen significant population decline since 1970, when almost 2 million people lived here. Now about 1.4 million do.
"We really have to increase our population," Oh said. He noted that American immigrants "got to be free, and they could work hard and, for the first time in their lives, believed that their children could have more that what they had. We have been the beneficiary of bringing all these people to our country. That's what we have to do here in Philadelphia."
This vision bespeaks Oh's own experience. A second-generation American with a Chinese-born Korean father and a Korean mother (both high school teachers), Oh recalls an upbringing that has kept him both a rooted Philadelphian and an internationally attuned thinker.

One issue to which Oh has given particular attention is the possible dredging of the Delaware River to allow for more shipping traffic. He says it will lead to more jobs created as Philadelphia's ports become more bustling. While the council cannot on its own decide in favor of dredging, Oh says he will use all of the clout a seat on the body will afford him to effect it. "I think it's really up in the air," Oh said. "That's why I'm running so hard and so vigorously."
Oh also said that, in part because of the failure to provide more capacious waters for ships, Philadelphia has lost much commercial activity to Baltimore in recent years.
A fiscal conservative who spurns the idea that government should chiefly create jobs through reinvestment of tax revenue, Oh wants any taxes that the city is willing to consider cutting brought down significantly. "All taxes should be decreased," he said.
He says the council should make it a top priority to reduce the city wage tax because "it really has an effect on our employers" and also to reduce the net-profits tax because he believes it deleteriously affects small- and mid-sized businesses.
Oh said he desires leaner, more efficient government, given the level of revenue the city takes in.
"Ultimately we have to show that we can tighten our belts but provide better services," he said.
He wants the city to work toward an overhaul of its transportation system and says the bureaucracy of the Philadelphia School District must be reduced and streamlined. With an overall dropout rate of about 40 percent, Oh believes the city's residents aren't receiving results commensurate with the money they spend on the school system.
He says he wants change to focus not principally on who's in charge of the schools but on dividing the school district into separate, elected boards, like Montgomery County does. He noted that the kind of curriculum that one part of the city may wish to have in its schools could differ somewhat from that in other parts of the city.
A lawyer by trade, Oh is a graduate of Dickinson College and went to law school at Rutgers State University in Camden, N.J. He served as an assistant district attorney when current Gov. Edward G. Rendell was Philadelphia's district attorney and ended his tenure well after Ron Castille had taken over as DA for a stint amounting to three years.
When asked what about his service in the DA's office makes him most proud, he says that he was very glad to have helped so many who were victims of crime. "You see how fragile people are," he said. "It's most clear when you're dealing with child victims."
Oh also served in the U.S. Army's 20th Special Forces Group beginning in 1988 and finishing his service at the conclusion of Desert Storm, though he was never called into combat.
Oh has racked up numerous endorsements from groups that have not traditionally embraced Republican candidates, such as the Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity, the Teamsters Joint Council No. 53, the Teamsters Local 107, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1776, the Fraternal Order of Housing Police and the Gas Works Employees Union Local 686.
"I am very proud of that," he said, "because it means that I have been able to articulate a vision or an agenda that these different groups share in common."
He has said that his position on the ports should have significant appeal to union workers who want increased job creation.
A political outsider, Oh still had a strong showing when he ran for City