Author: Brendan Huffman

Like a college freshman needing to learn some smooth lines to connect with co-eds, the GOP needs to better learn how to connect with women voters.

The latest example of the GOP missing the boat on attracting women voters is from a Santa Ana city councilman’s comment after the Orange County Board of Supervisors yesterday selected Sandra Hutchens as the new sheriff:

As reported in the Los Angeles Times’ lead paragraph on the story, "I kept telling the chief," he said, referring to Santa Ana Police Chief Paul Walters, who narrowly lost the sheriff’s job, " ‘Maybe we should get you some implants. Or a water bra.’ "

Since my post last week about instant runoff voting being worth considering, primarily due to the cost savings for election officials, I have received several comments, including one from L.A. City Councilman Greig Smith who is widely recognized as a reliable business vote.

In a recent blast e-mail to various folks in L.A., he says:

Instant runoff voting unfairly hampers candidates that fight for Los Angeles’ business community.  As someone who has run for office, I can attest that I would have to incorporate practically all of the expenses of my runoff into a single instant runoff election. 

Under this scenario, only unlimited independent expenditure campaigns will possess the means to afford the high costs of campaigning in Los Angeles.  This provides powerful special interests who regularly oppose Los Angeles’ business community a significant advantage over independent-minded candidates.

Here in Los Angeles, an effort is underway to place an "instant runoff initiative" on the city’s Nov. 4 ballot.

As in San Francisco, L.A.’s instant runoff election would allow voters to vote by ranking their choices in numerical order. If no candidate earns a majority of the first choices, the last-place candidate is eliminated and votes are re-tallied based on voters’ preferences. The process is repeated until a candidate has received a majority of the votes for candidates who have not been eliminated.

Sound confusing? Yes, but it’s a system worth considering.

The CA Supreme Court ruling to legalize same-sex marriages could be just what the GOP ordered. National support for Republican Party leadership ranks only slightly higher than support for measles, and John McCain has not yet succeeded in rallying the religious wing of his party.

But now religious conservatives have a mission and that is to overturn the court’s decision with a state constitutional amendment that will likely qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot. How will those voters (not to mention Democratic constituencies that oppose gay-marriages) impact the other items on the same ballot?

While there have always been "nanny bills" to address the multitude of cultural wrongs in our society, the number appears to have increased in recent years.

The California Legislature has considered several such bills since last year that address some important issues, but should probably have been amended, including:

• Smoking (both legal and illegal cigarettes I assume) in vehicles with children and is now the law. I’d actually vote for this bill even though I doubt it will inspire anyone thoughtless enough to smoke in front of children in a car to comply with this law.
• 17-18 year olds using electronic devices while driving, and is also a new law. Why just kids? In my experience, younger folks are able to multi-task better than adults!
• Spanking children under 5 years old. From my experience as a parent and a recipient of spanking, it doesn’t really work as a behavioral tool. But it might work on parents who insist on taking their obnoxious kids to places and then ignore them while the rest of our outings to restaurants and movies are ruined.
• Banning trans fats in school cafeterias and restaurants. As long as lard is still legal, what good will it do to ban trans fats?