The 2013 city council campaign spending came in just under $150,000 for the nine-horse race last November. Robert Schnagel hasn't filed his Form 460, but you can see the rest of field's filings here.
I'm going to just take the Total Expenditure lines at face value and show the cost per vote for each candidate:
Total Expense Total Votes Cost/Vote
Keighran $22,524 3,028 $7.44
Brownrigg $17,227 2,701 $6.38
Ortiz $15,672 2,054 $7.63
----------
Cohen $14,966 2,045 $7.32
Bandrapalli $22,768 1,512 $15.06
Peceimer $53,065 891 $59.56
Duncan $718 392 $1.83
Kent $1,791 319 $5.61
Schnagel N/A 277
You can read the results yourself, but it is interesting how close the top four candidates were in cost per vote--a 16% spread from highest to lowest for those four.
Ann K. and Nirmala spent the same amount but Ann got almost exactly twice the votes. There's a message in there somewhere for someone.
Posted by: Anne | February 03, 2014 at 10:35 PM
The real question is why should an incumbent have to spend so much money? And secondly, one would hope that an incumbent would get twice the votes of one running on the coat tails of Terry Nagel, even though neither got my vote. Brownrigg spent little and did just fine as an incumbent seeking reelection. Keighran and Nagel should both look for something else with which to occupy their time.
Posted by: Been here forever | February 04, 2014 at 03:42 PM
Too bad Kevin Mullin couldn't just look at his own neighborhood for inspiration! From the DJ
The state of California would foot the bill for future election recounts triggered by close races under proposed legislation introduced Thursday by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco.
The Peninsula lawmaker announced plans for such a law during the legislative recess and followed through yesterday by gutting an existing Senate bill. The proposed bill would require a state-funded recount when the difference between second and third place is one-tenth of 1 percent.
Mullin saw the need for change after state controller candidate John Perez, a termed-out Los Angeles assemblyman, sparked a recount in the June primary results. The race highlighted issues that are long due for fixing, according to Mullin.
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-08-08/election-recount-bill-introduced-california-would-fund-tally-triggered-by-close-races/1776425128060.html
Posted by: Joe | August 08, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Here's an interesting tidbit from the SacBee:
Even as voting by mail becomes increasingly common in California elections, more mail ballots are not being counted, according to a study of mail voting in three counties, including Sacramento.
The report, released Tuesday by the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, found that 0.8 percent of the mail ballots cast in four elections in Orange, Santa Cruz and Sacramento counties were never counted. Sixty-one percent of them arrived after Election Day. Twenty percent of the ballots had not been signed, and in 18 percent of the cases, election officials concluded that the signature on the ballot did not match the voter’s signature the office had on file.
Kim Alexander, the voter foundation’s president and the main author of the report, said she she is confident that its findings also apply to the state’s 55 other counties.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/20/6640343/late-arrival-missing-signatures.html#storylink=cpy
Posted by: Joe | August 21, 2014 at 02:54 PM
Folks, $150,000 is decent money (for most) to spend on a campaign in this pond. Funny how none of last year's candidates are applying for the new spot, except for the one who has really earned it. Why interview with the public of Burlingame when you only have to sway four minds? Then again, as Bruce Dickinson recalls, there was so much "foot IN mouth" disease at the last election some of those candidates' egos probably wouldn't be able to take a 0% vote of no confidence.
Another question to ponder, what happens if the appointment is deadlocked in a 2-2 vote? Is Deal going to be around to vote? Maybe that's exactly what is wanted, a get out of jail deadlocked vote. No need to make tough decisions for 1 year!
Posted by: Bruce Dickinson | September 22, 2014 at 08:23 PM
Bruce,
Perhaps you should run (or apply in this case), instead of so much talking.
"Funny how....blah, blah, blah, Bruce."
Indeed, I believe that Russ deserves it after such a close result.
AK
Posted by: AK | September 22, 2014 at 10:05 PM
I believe Bruce Dickenson is exactly what is needed to manage the City of Burlingame.. The sooner the better.
The only Counsel member who comes close to the Bone Fides Mr. Dickenson has is Elder Ortiz.
No one knows anything about Elder Ortiz.
Therefore, Elder Ortiz has no reason to be a Board member.
(Other than install this position on his IT Resume)
Mr. Dickenson has thoughts, experience in dealing with the most difficult personalities in the world, and a vision for The City of Burlingame.
Mr.. Dickenson surrounds himself with people who get thing done.
I believe he gets things done by minimizing his personal interests, and working strictly for the people who hire/ vote for him.
Mr. Dickenson is a Facts vs. Fiction thinker and is able to take the emotion, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours, political Bull Shit out of running a multi million dollar corporation-City of Burlingame, out of the hands of City Elders who have no business experience, and every single one of the current Elders are beholden to some Bank/Real estate/Contractor business, school district, and Church Groups
I can not help but wonder how many, and what promises have been made to City of Burlingame Elders by Jerry Hill.
Bruce Dickenson is a Maverick.
I hope he considers being our Maverick.
The ability of his campaign to turn over rocks, without diluting his message to reconfiguring the running of Burlingame is exactly what is necessary for our Country.
This guy could live anyplace in the world. However, him and his people live here with us.
Good Luck Bruce & "More Cow Bell."
Holy
Posted by: [email protected] | September 23, 2014 at 04:06 PM
Holy-Baby, thanks for the kind words..and coming from me, that means a lot!
AK, listen little fella, what I have to say is protected by the 1st amendment to the Constitution. What you have to say is protected by the 1st amendment to the Constitution. The only difference what I have to say is enjoyed by nearly everyone on this site and what you have to say, well to be blunt, is not. Really, it isn't, but you probably know that already. I guess some are gluttons for punishment.
I bet the Gorton's fisherman would agree with me, you either fish or cut bait when you don't catch anything, usually most move to a different ocean (or pond) or give up fishing altogether. Yes, I know Russ and Joe love to bait, but they're expert fisherman who know how to catch a whale if they want to..this they have proven, as it were.
By the way, where are those libertarians vehemently "defending" free speech a few posts ago?!? I would be remiss if I didn't say that "free speech defense" only applies in select cases, which is why I called libertarian party the "cop out" and "have cake and eat it too" party. Well, it's back to the future and call me smitten--while I have no crystal ball, my instinct and prescience has gotten the better of me, again, just as it has for 50 years! And guess what!?!? those that put libertarian free speech on a pedestal a few days ago now poop on it in toilet, because they don't like to be out witted, out-smarted, or out-liked by others. Ironic twist of events, as it were, but nonetheless, predicted by yours truly.
Alas I digress. You gotta walk the talk, baby. With free speech, one mans food and nourishment can be another man's diarrhea, and I get it: opinions are like A_ _ H O_ _ S, everyone has one--well you know how the saying goes.
Here's a nugget of advice for you little fella, take some lessons from Dr. Dickinson, and before long, you'll be wearing gold plated diapers! There's a reason why Bruce Dickinson is *the cock of the walk* !!
Posted by: Bruce Dickinson | September 23, 2014 at 06:32 PM
*yawn*
Posted by: fred | September 24, 2014 at 12:36 PM
Bruce, you suffer from delusions of grandeur. For you to think that everyone loves your opinions and everyone doesn't like my opinions is pretty silly.
Like I said, apply or run for something instead of your long-winded rants.
Posted by: AK | September 24, 2014 at 04:06 PM
I'm with Bruce on this, AK. He's funny, you are not. He's right, you are not.
Posted by: resident | September 24, 2014 at 05:03 PM
Bruce, you sure you want to run? Expose Burlingame's dirty underbelly… Yeah old pal, some unauthorized rough drafts of your publication, "Burlingame Confidential - The Localist Papers" got into the wrong hands. Who leaked…Ralphie, "Motor Mouth" Emilio, Lefty? I wonder. Clever pun on "The Federalist Papers" What's next, "Common Sense"? Bruce, it's not 1773 in Boston, it's 2014 Burlingame. Come on, get real. I admit, makes for interesting reading. Will you run and will you publish?
-JS
Posted by: Joe Sarno | September 28, 2014 at 01:53 PM