Comments
NICK'S VIEW - Accuracy over speed is California’s purpose when counting ballots, although it appears to be more like a leaky faucet slowly dribbling in the results. We have built a voter-friendly system that begins with the mailing of ballots to every registered voter, about 23 million people. And we provide ample time for the count, up to June 15, with a 30-window to cure signature issues, and provisional and damaged ballots.
The painstaking count is just one side of the coin that describes this election. The other is a sense of a civic uncertainty, a mismatched ensemble of candidates ranging from a celebrity amateur to a checkbook‑powered billionaire, all jostling for relevance.
Throughout it all, voters felt political whiplash. Still, a potentially meaningful scenario is emerging for November that could give state and city leaders some hope.
The general election will pit milquetoast Democrat Xavier Becerra against MAGA Republican Steve Hilton, both of whom have consistently led in both the vote count and the polls. Still, the dynamics of the November race will depend largely on where the final primary totals land and how effectively each candidate unifies support afterward.
Tom Steyer won the third prize. As CitywatchLA went online, he had received 1,937,388 votes at a cost of over $200 million, an extraordinarily high figure in modern U.S. politics, far above typical gubernatorial or even presidential primary spending levels. If these primaries offer a lesson, it may be that we remain wary of wealthy candidates trying to buy their way into office, as it was also the case in last LA mayoral election.
Karen Bass led the mayoral primary by combining three strengths none of her rivals matched at once: institutional support, a unified Democratic base, and strong results in late-arriving ballots.
Obviously, institutional support is still a critical advantage in Los Angeles politics, and even during a chaotic period Bass received major endorsements, established and benefited from a donor network, and maintained strong labor support.
Spencer Pratt’s celebrity profile gave him a front‑loaded advantage. His delivery of brazen remarks and capricious performance provoked interest, but he lost his early momentum because his support was shallow and his coalition narrow.
The election night gap between Pratt and Nithya Raman was significant, but she managed to gain a path to the November runoff. Los Angeles still has thousands of uncounted ballots, most of them vote‑by‑mail, and they may favor Bass and Raman, not Pratt.
The November election hopefully will be a discussion of vision and ideas, unlike the last mayoral election with its stale rhetoric, slogans and tired talking points. The debate will focus on old vs. young, tradition vs. progress, unions and establishments facing young, dynamic, and hungry leadership for the city’s future.
Frankly, I am tired of quick, superficial fixes that cover up problems instead of solving them—the governing equivalent of putting a band-aid on a deep wound. It may conceal the issue for a moment, but the underlying problems only worsen, as seen in homelessness, crime, housing affordability, and parks. Deeper discussion will be demanded by the voters in November. Voters are no longer satisfied with slogans. They will look for competence, clarity, trust in leadership, and a plan.
Los Angeles’ problems are too deep and they cannot be settled through public anger and frustration. A transition to hope and vision is a powerful and necessary resolution, and a very hard one. This is what November candidates must focus on.
What voters wanted, it seems, was direction instead of frustration. They want a city that works again. Inspiration matters, but so do seriousness, execution, and credible solutions from leaders who understand government and know how to make it work. Los Angeles is fed up with abstract policy debates; people are living with daily experiences which are visible and costly.
A case in point is the approval of the $2.6-billion expansion of the Convention Center (Katy Yaroslavsky and Nithya Raman voted against it). The project could drain more than $100 million annually from the city`s general fund, at the time when we are living with crumbling infrastructure, crime, homelessness, housing shortage, and neglected parks. City controller Kenneth Mejia stated that it won`t generate positive income for the city budget until late 2050s.This is typical of an issue that should have been debated in public rather than in the council chambers where unions, lobbyists, and special interests control votes.
After analyzing the results to date, I have determined that while the state was seeking direction and identity, the city was seeking restoration. People wanted a repair strategy and management of crises. In LA the issue is clearly functional vs. dysfunctional.
The mayoral candidates should heed how Richard Nixon defined candidate Ronald Reagan’s 1980 crusade, which I read in Ken Khachigian`s book, “Behind Closed Doors.” He described Reagan’s task as “one of unlocking the nation’s- and people’s- potential, of renewing the upward climb, getting us back on track, enlisting our energies and energizing our hopes, fulfilling our dreams, restoring our strength and ensuring our security “
In my view, the candidate who can explain how to fix problems, present credible structural solutions, and show real leadership will win over exasperated and angry voters. In this environment, the runoff is less a contest of personalities than a test of governing ability—a choice between competing ideas for repairing a city that has outgrown band-aid solutions. Los Angeles is not looking to dream big this year; it is trying to stabilize, and the candidate who can turn civic frustration into credible direction will meet the moment.
(Nick Patsaouras is an electrical engineer, civic leader, and a longtime public advocate. He ran for Mayor in 1993 with a focus on rebuilding L.A. through transportation after the 1992 civil unrest. He has served on major public boards, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Metro, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, helping guide infrastructure and planning policy in Los Angeles. He is the author of the book "The Making of Modern Los Angeles.")
