IRV should not have "exhausted ballots" to the degree that it does. We should be able to express a preference for every candidate over the one we most dislike; not just the top three.

I suspect that if the 6,000 or so voters who put neither Olague or Breed on their ballots had had more spaces to fill in, most of them would have selected Olague in preference over the Brown protege.

This implementation of IRV still suffers from the problem of too many candidates diluting the support of their natural constituency; a problem which is highlighted in the presence of a focused and moneyed strategy on the part of downtown interests.

We need more democracy, not less.

As a Redevelopment Commissioner, London Breed was a constant rubber stamp vote for the rapacious Wall Street developer and sub-prime loan property dealer Lennar Corporation. Breed's votes ensured that this corporation has been allowed to proceed with developing market rate condos (while betraying its affordable housing promises to the City) on a highly toxic Navy superfund site in the Bay View Hunters Point which will likely never be properly cleaned up.

In its construction, for the last six years, and to this day, Lennar has been stirring chemicals and asbestos into the air that have poisoned thousands of Bayview residents, which will doubtless lead to many premature and painful deaths in that community from cancer, mesothelioma, asthma and other diseases.

And yet during her campaign, Breed continuously bragged about how she grew up in the projects and has family in both the Fillmore and District 10.

Breed brings a deadly hypocrisy to District 5, the City, and the very neighborhoods from which she claims to have risen, and in which members of her own family live.

To read more about the toxic gentrification of Lennar corporation in our city, begin with the SF Guardian article 'The Corporation That Ate San Francisco' at http://www.sfbg.com/2007/03/14/corporation-ate-san-francisco

Of course, the Avalos/Campos cabal had shifted their support before that as a result of the 8 Washington vote. Only when Davis's campaign imploded did they shift their support to Olague, too little and too late. Spy vs. Spy, forever.

but it is pretty astounding to see how the progressives in this town vilify those who aren't "pure." Tim is surprised about Olague not winning? Has he read his own paper the past year? They've been brutal towards her, and only when their golden boy Davis went down did they ever say a nice thing about her with the exception of her Mirkarimi vote.

I think SF progressives and US Republicans have at least one thing in common: they need to get used to the idea that it is better to elect someone who they agree with 80% of the time as opposed to losing with a candidate they agree with 100%. If not, they will see their influence continue to decline.

What if Pearce did not fail at all - those who were truly employing him?

here you go http://sfelections.org/results/20121106/index.php

"It may also be possible that the voters were very likely disgusted with the all of the recent controversies, the tenor of the negative campaigning, and just wanted to move on. Sometimes, those kinds of attacks can boomerang on the attacker, and create a sympathetic vote for the attacked."

The BG said there was no way David could win, yet he came in a close fourth, and might have pulled it off, if they hadn't deserted him. So essentially they threw the most progressive candidate under the bus and will now have to contend with Breed catering to downtown corporate interests over the next few years, and possibly beyolnd. Way to shoot yourself in the foot, guys!