The part is never as strong as the whole. That's the basic idea of crowdsourcing. For those new to the term, crowdsourcing has been defined at Wikipedia, the most successful, popular crowdsourced project, as:
Crowdsourcing is a neologism for the act of taking a task traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people or community in the form of an open call. For example, the public may be invited to develop a new technology, carry out a design task (also known as community-based design and distributed participatory design), refine or carry out the steps of an algorithm (see Human-based computation), or help capture, systematize or analyze large amounts of data (see also citizen science).
The term has become popular with business authors and journalists as shorthand for the trend of leveraging the mass collaboration enabled by Web 2.0 technologies to achieve business goals. However, both the term and its underlying business models have attracted controversy and criticism.
Now a group of unknowns, led by an evil genius is pushing a project to get the citizens of Austin engaged with the city. The project is simply called Open Austin, and its purpose is to use Austin and Texas' expertise to improve our city.
OpenAustin is a community-based effort to crowdsource the requirements and development for the new City of Austin web site using local software developers, marketing experts, and graphic designers that have been displaced from their jobs due to the current economic downturn. This will produce a superior web site for the citizens of Austin at a fraction of the cost of the city's lowest bid.
The idea may seem familiar to people who paid especially close attention to the Austin Mayoral race. Mayor candidate, Brewster McCracken, launched a similar project during the election called Ideas for Austin. The site is now inactive, and now that the campaign is over I can readily admit that Ideas for Austin was a moment were I was genuinely scared and glad to have Brewster McCracken in the race.
Having people engaged and talking about tough policy questions and offering real world and uncensored solutions is a good thing.
Open Austin can and will continue to the mission of McCracken's Ideas for Austin but it removes the political nature of having a candidate or campaign trying to actively organize what should be an organic and community based project.
Since going live, Open Austin has generated 57 ideas. Some of them already exist. Others, are totally original. In either case, OpenAustin.org, highlights either a need to make our current city infrastructure more user friendly or the need to create new tools to improve our rapidly growing city.
Projects like Open Austin are what make this a great place to live and work. Our creative community is an essential part of Austin and the more ideas we generate together, the more people we can inspire to get involved at a micro-level to improve our cities and neighborhoods. Together, we can both crowdsource problems and the communal solutions. By ourselves, political problems can be daunting, but together, we can find a resolution to any challenge.
This map is courtesy of the Austin American-Statesman which did a great job putting it together after the election. I expect we'll see some more from the Austin Chronicle tomorrow.
I think it's pretty clear that Lee if Mayor of Austin, all of it. Though Brewster was able to win one west campus precinct and the downtown precinct covering 6th Street. Other than that, it was slim pickings for Carole and Brewster on the peripheral precincts.
Runoff is Saturday, June 13; Riley Defeats Cavazos Nearly 2:1 in Place 1
Mayoral candidates Lee Leffingwell and Brewster McCracken will be forced to go to a runoff to decide who will be the next Mayor of Austin. The runoff will be Saturday, June 13.
With 100% of precincts reporting, Lee Leffingwell finished with a commanding lead on the field of five candidates with 47.26% of the vote. He won almost the same percentage of votes through the early vote period as he did on election day. Full results can be found here:
Election results from the Travis County Elections Division were reported throughout the night here at Burnt Orange Report through our site's new @texaselections widget. The results tally 58,630 votes cast, representing 13.01% of registered voters.
For about twenty minutes in the evening it looked like Leffingwell may tick up fast enough to reach the 50% threshold. But as more boxes came in, the returns evened out, and it became clear that a highly anticipated runoff would soon become a reality. Behind Leffingwell, Brewster McCracken won 26.8% of the vote, which will be enough to send him into a runoff. Slightly behind McCracken, once-Austin mayor and former Texas State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn finished has 21.43% of the vote, leaving her in a disappointing third place.
Burnt Orange Report writer David Mauro reported earlier in the night that in 1997, Ronney Reynolds conceded rather than face a runoff against Kirk Watson, who received 48.47% in his initial election. However, McCracken's campaign has clearly stated that McCracken will go forward for the runoff.
Rounding out the election returns for mayor, David Buttross won 3.84% of the vote, but may still be in for some exciting news. Earlier in the evening he went to the hospital for the possible birth of his second child. KXAN news is reporting Buttross and his wife were expecting a child before the night was over. Fourth place and a new child -- I'll bet he'll still be happy.
Josiah Ingalls, however, will have less to smile about. He finished in last place, with only 0.69% of the vote. Josiah has announced that he will be looking for a job on Monday -- he recently lost his position at the Hilton Hotel.
Riley Defeats Cavazos 65.52% - 34.48% in Place 1; Spellman, Martinez, & Cole Win Big
In the Austin City Council Place 1, which was expected to be the only other real contest on the ballot, Chris Riley defeated Perla Cavazos with over 65.52% of the vote. Cavazos thanked Riley for a hard-fought campaign, as Riley celebrated his victory with many supporters tonight, including Burnt Orange Report writer and Riley campaign manager, Katherine Haenschen.
In Place 2, Mike Martinez won a commanding 84.97% over Jose Quintero. Martinez' 43,630 votes were the most any candidate received in Saturday's election.
In Place 6, Sheryl Cole also won a decisive victory over Osemene Sam. Over 83.17% of voters chose Cole for the seat.
And finally, Bill Spellman won his unanimous election to Austin's Place 6 seat. Though he only needed his own, he did get 43,104 of the 58,630 voters to choose him, anyways.
To re-read Burnt Orange Report's all-night election coverage, scroll through our Twitter widget below for the recaps and updates we posted throughout the night.
Elections are supposed to be a competition of ideas, but aren't really. Nationally, elections are actually fundraising competitions. Ever since a ridiculous campaign contribution limit was imposed on Austin city elections, council races have turned into student council elections with a few TV commercials thrown in.
No word yet on what the Statesman editorial page plans to do to make its Austin City Council coverage little more than student newspaper reporting with a few good bloggers thrown in (Omar, my man -- I got your back). After all, their endorsement today contained this oft-repeated lie:
Council Member Lee Leffingwell, another mayoral candidate, is a steady hand who has been successful in bringing disparate groups to the table and hammering out compromises. He has an excellent record on environmental issues and has steered numerous projects through City Hall. However, Leffingwell, 69, is too close to the public safety unions, whose salary demands could handcuff the city next year.
Indeed, despite the Statesman’s string of fact-free editorials in recent weeks, I have never said “hands off public safety.” I have never said that police, fire or EMS should be “last in line for budget cuts.” I have never said that our public safety departments should be “exempt from trimming.” I have never said that I want “to hold the police and fire departments exempt from budget cuts.” I have never said I “would rather ask companies to sacrifice their tax incentives than have police officers and firefighters give up their raises.” I have never said I want public safety employees “to have their millions of dollars in raises and overtime at any cost.” Yet week after week, the Statesman editorial board mysteriously continues to advance these fictions. As far as I know, I’ve only been “criticized as beholden to the powerful public safety unions” by the Statesman editorial board itself (which, as you’ll no doubt recall, dubbed me “a longtime union leader” even though I’ve never been any kind of union leader), and by people actively supporting another candidate for mayor in this election.
BUT ANYWAYS...
Hopefully most of you living in Austin have already voted or are preparing to do so soon. Here are our endorsements, in case you've somehow missed them:
The basics was that McCracken had received about $8,000 more than he should have from out-of-town dollars. Leffingwell approached McCracken's campaign about this; McCracken's campaign said it was ridiculous; Leffingwell filed a municipal complaint, and here we are.
Why is nobody asking a single expert to weigh in on this issue? It certainly seems like rampant mudslinging. I heard yesterday that the Leffingwell camp was going to file "criminal" charges, which 1. They don't have the authority to do and 2. That makes it seem all the more likely this is just dirty politics less than a week before the election.
While there is some question as to who Mr. Bombadil may or may not be, calling for an expert to weigh is worthwhile. After all, we could debate things back and forth all day -- but I'm not an expert, and neither is Tom.
Jim Cousar, though, is an expert. In fact, another commenter in KT's original post, Jeb, even said:
Would it be too much trouble for someone in the media to speak with Jim Cousar or another expert in election law about this?
To answer Tom and Jeb's request, here is a legal memo from Mr. Cousar about the situation, as provided by the Lee Leffingwell campaign (I wonder if Tom and Jeb will still accuse Lee of dirty campaign tricks now that their requests have basically been met). From Lee's website, Cousar wrote an opinion:
SUMMARY There is no legal basis in the City Charter for accepting additional out-of-town contributions, prior to the May election, once the cap has been reached. Neither the plain language of the charter provision (which allows additional amounts only in the case of a runoff election), the legislative history of the Charter, nor analogous provisions of other campaign finance laws support that theory. If a candidate has accepted more contributions from out-of-town contributors than the Charter allows, those amounts should be immediately refunded to the contributors.
Brewster McCracken has had a formal complaint filed against him in municipal court by fellow Austin Mayoral candidate Lee Leffingwell. The charges are that he has accepted an excess of ~$8000 more than is allowable from out of Austin donors according to campaign finance laws that McCracken helped approve. Carole Strayhorn, while not a party to the complaint, has joined Leffingwell in criticizing McCracken and called for him to return the donors.
McCracken's campaign replies that the funds are within the caps if one considers the additional funds that can be raised when you allow for a runoff, though there is no explicit provision that allows for that line of reasoning in the current code. And of course, there is no guarantee that McCracken will make a runoff.
A good rundown of the story courtesy of Fox 7. We'd post the KVUE story but they are the ONLY broadcast station in Austin that hasn't woken up and made their broadcasts embedable elsewhere online. I guess they can have fun over in their walled garden along with News8Austin because I'm not linking to either of their content on this.
I wrote below about the cowardly anonymoity of the purveyors of Brewster Nation, and how they actually hurt free speech by violating campaign law and refusing to disclose who they were on their website or in their leaflets.
The internet is a new and powerful phenomenon. Let's treat it with some respect, be honest in our campaigning, and stop engaging in fear-mongering anonymous attacks that destroy the best parts of free speech that gave all of us our (online) voice in the first place.
Details about the group are extremely sketchy; their website has no contact info other than a generic email address. A Whois search says BrewsterNation.com is registered to Kimiko Tokita, a woman who is also named as a media contact in the press release announcing the website launch. However, in a comment on the Brewster Nation blog, the administrator writes “Brewster Nation is funded by a private Austin individual exercising his [emphasis added] right to free speech, and providing a web portal for others to share their opinion.” Tokita confirmed she was hired to work for the group by a figure who, for now, wishes to remain anonymous.
Update by KT: I know who's behind the website. It's clearly your neighbor Lisa.
It continues the Strayhorn message which is to attack Lee and Brewster. Though the tacking on of Cavazos in the ad seems a bit disjointed to the overall message.
A couple days ago the Brewster McCracken for Mayor campaign posted this ad to their YouTube channel. In it, McCracken compares the history and relative rise and fall of the city of St. Louis as a warning that not all cities that were once great, continue to be so. Click here to see it (as the campaign has disabled it from being embedded).
On it's face, I think it is a fair comparison and critique. The St. Louis of today is not that of 1904 (nor is Austin for that matter). But the larger point is made- is our city filled with promise or is it growing so fast that we are not able to accommodate the expectations of both those who already live here as well as those who continue to move here because of what our city offers? That's an entirely reasonable debate to have, but politically, pointing out faults of other cities isn't exactly going to fly when you talk to their citizens.
Case in point, the following report from KMOV 4 in St. Louis which submitted the following local report in reaction to McCracken's ad.
The Leffingwell campaign responded (Lee flew to St. Louis during his years as a pilot for Delta).
He flew to St. Louis frequently for years as a Delta pilot.
"St. Louis is a terrific city and I don't believe it deserves to be compared unfavorably to any other city. There are lots of things about St. Louis that other cities, including Austin, ought to be envious of. Nobody should run down another city and insult the people who live there just to score political points at home."
Update: Not all the locals in St. Louis are being knee-jerk reactionaries.
Mark Edwards: McCracken is spot on. The CITY of St. Louis has been allowed to die because of petty politics, a complete lack of vision for the region, and denying its residents essential services like well paved streets, decent schools, and functioning public transit.
As you can imagine, the locals here are up in arms about this shot at St. Louis. They're hurt, and I don't blame them. Its harsh, but its completely true.
St. Louis is the poster child of how to kill a city's soul, drive the people and businesses you need to thrive to the suburbs (where I live and could not be happier), and have city and county leadership spending too much time at the baseball stadium (with the vacant lot next door that was supposed to be a multi million dollar shopping/office/residential mecca in time for July's All Star Game) and not enough time looking around to see what a mess they've made or thinking of realistic ways to improve the quality of life in the region.
I don't know anything about Brewster McCracken. Wait, I do know ONE thing. He's got a better view of the sorry state of St. Louis than the people running our region do. Maybe our local leaders will take a minute, watch this commercial, and ponder what they've done to the once grand CITY of St. Louis.
We've reached that time, just days before the start of early voting in municipal elections, when campaigns finally take to the airwaves with their television buys. What fantastically awesome and awful ads await us this year? Continue on below to find out!
Mayoral Race: Brewster McCracken
Folksy-ish music? Yes.
On campaign message? Yes.
Walking into City Hall shot? Yes.
Actually see candidate talking? Yes.
Total number of pears left uneaten in family room? 7.
Folksier music? Yes.
On campaign message? It almost runs over you.
Walking into City Hall shot? No, like last year.
Actually see candidate talking? No, like last year.
Haven't we seen this footage before? Yes, like, you get the picture.
Likelihood for Phillip Martin to "hate" this: High.
Creepy, ominous music? Yes.
Creepy, fake cheery voice? Yes.
On campaign message? Yes, if crazy is a message.
City Hall shot? No, apparently City Hall moved since she was mayor.
Place 1: Chris Riley
Folksy music? Yes.
Number of bicycles in ad. 1.
Number of posed children. 5.
Walking into City Hall shot? Yes.
Born and raised inside city hall? Possibly.
Place 1: Perla Cavazos
Folksy music? Oh hell no.
Urban pseudo-latin spicy music? Oh hell yes!
Most memorable but most undefined message? Possibly.
Gives pro-downtown impression when played with sound off? Ironically, yes.
Laura Morrison-esque downtown building hate? NOOOOOOO! (meaning yes).
Number of Cesar Chavez Cavazos Cervezas I need now? Seis.
