↓
 
Home » Pratt falling in Los Angeles tallies

Pratt falling in Los Angeles tallies

The New Neo Posted on by

I couldn’t resist a pun for the title of this post. But the content is no joke. We all knew that the vote counting in California is very very slow, and that there’s a history of it turning towards the left as it goes on and if there’s a hint of someone on the right doing relatively well.

Does that mean there’s cheating? Maybe. There’s certainly a strong desire to win coupled with a less-than-convincing devotion to assuring that the will of the voters will be carried out no matter what the outcome. The mail-in ballots that can come in late, the drop-boxes, the rabid leftist partisanship, all combine to create at the very least a lack of trust in the system on the part of anyone on the right.

And so it was almost a foregone conclusion that this would be happening, and that it would seem suspicious whether it is or not:

… [T]he race for second place in the mayor’s contest is moving in a direction that should concern Spencer Pratt supporters, and anyone who thinks Los Angeles needs to move toward a more centrist, common-sense course.

Friday afternoon’s update added roughly 140,000 ballots countywide, with about 42.7% from within the city of Los Angeles.

Mayor Karen Bass remains firmly in first place with 34.98% of the vote. The real drama is the battle for the second runoff spot between Pratt and City Councilwoman Nithya Raman. …

Raman gained 23,115 votes in Friday’s update, compared to 10,711 for Pratt and 20,419 for Bass. In a single ballot drop, Raman netted 12,404 votes on Pratt. …

Put another way, she received more than twice as many votes as Pratt in this batch.

The upshot is that Pratt may fall to third place as more votes come in. And if he’s in third, he won’t be on the ballot. California’s voting system is designed to give voters a November choice of leftist and more leftist, rather than Democrat and Republican. But realistically, even if Pratt holds onto second place, at present he is only getting about a quarter or third of the vote compared to a combined Democrat/leftist vote that constitutes a definite majority.

Why anyone would vote for Bass or Raman is beyond me. I understand that Democrats will vote for Democrats. But these two have had their chances and have failed to help the city. If I lived in LA, I think that even if I were a Democrat I’d give Pratt a chance.

Comments

Pratt falling in Los Angeles tallies — 27 Comments

  1. LA, and California continue to circle the drain, just like Seattle, Chicago, the list goes on.

  2. They’re not voting for a person, they’re voting for a figurehead to preside over a system of patronage that is largely unelected. Pratt will not be in control of that system even if elected, but he can damage it, and most Angelenos who are going to vote do not want that system damaged even if it doesn’t deliver the results they want, they can always blame Trump or a handful of Republican kulaks and wreckers.

  3. The fact that neither pratt nor hilton are accruing any votes is the evidence of fraud as in 2020

    Those who are benefiting from the grift of the 400 hospices the train to nowhere. The road bridge the gender treatment clinic

    Those that have to navigate the fentanyl the armies of homeless and thieves

    Well they are outvoted

  4. Niketas:

    Why wouldn’t most Angelenos want that system dismantled? Are the majority of the residents beneficiaries of it? I understand why the beneficiaries would want it continued, but are there that many?

    I think most people just vote reflexively without knowing why or playing real attention to much of anything.

  6. I suspect the citizens of LA think things are just fine, because that is what they are told. I am also certain there is cheating, it is the Democrat way.

    I didn’t think Pratt would prevail, but I do hope he has started a trend.

  10. @neo:Why wouldn’t most Angelenos want that system dismantled?

    a) Exposed to different facts from you
    b) Weight those facts in common with you differently from they way you do in their decision-making
    c) Have different values from yours

    Are the majority of the residents beneficiaries of it? I understand why the beneficiaries would want it continued, but are there that many?

    We’ve been learning over the last few years that there are entire minority communities hooked into it, have we not? People don’t sign their kids up for the fake Quality Learing Center for nothing, they get a kickback.

    These systems were not voted for and won’t be removed by voting against them. Who in the US voted for massive Medicaid fraud? Who in the UK voted for Muslim rape gangs, or for the police to turn a blind eye to them when not punishing the victims? And which of the two major political parties showed any interest in meeting the majority’s desire not to be subjected to two-tier policing?

    What majority in the US wants crooked elections? What just happened to the SAVE Act despite the large absolute majority in its favor, quire aside from Republican voters?

    But there doesn’t need to be a majority who want LA to stay the same, just a critical mass. I think we’ve all been around long enough to realize that vocal, passionate, and highly interested minorities can prevail for a long time against a numerical majority that has other things on its mind and does not act together. I think we were warned about this in The Federalist, and it’s not a new issue.

    By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community….

    The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

    No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

    It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole….

  11. The President has tasked Los Angeles federal attorney, Bill Essayli with investigating the California election. It Will be interesting to see what happens if he find the irregularities that we know exist.

    “We will follow the evidence wherever it leads and prosecute any violations of federal election law to the fullest extent,” Attorney Essayli said in his statement.
    He said that his office was working with Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon to “conduct a comprehensive audit of California’s voter rolls.”
    “The state has stonewalled every effort to verify that only eligible U.S. citizens are registered to vote,” he declared. “This case is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. My office will not look the other way. We will investigate and prosecute. Every legal vote deserves to be counted. Every illegal vote cancels one out.”

    https://www.rsbnetwork.com/news/u-s-attorney-essayli-announces-multiple-election-fraud-investigations-in-california/

  12. Neo, are you tell me that you’re surprised people would vote for something that clearly hasn’t been working for them? Am I going to have to tell people my futsal story? (A true story btw. I know it’s a tangent but it has a point.)

  13. Niketas Choniates on June 6, 2026 at 7:10 pm:
    Thank you for supplying that Federalist text about faction and party.
    I just came across an essay providing a semi-criticism of the founders that even though they seemed to understand the problems therein [per your quotation, etc.], still they had failed to truly address the required governmental structure to address it more forthrightly. But the author does not suggest any better approach himself.
    The essay is at https://www.libertyfund.org/250th/dissension-destruction-and-war/

    One extract: “Notwithstanding Madison’s deliberately provocative defense of factional politics in Federalist 10, the default view remained that parties and factions were a mortal threat to republics. We find it expressed elegiacally in George Washington’s Farewell Address, aggressively in John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Acts, and presumptuously in Jefferson’s own first inaugural address: we are all Federalists, we are all Republicans. Parties in fact developed, but each side insisted that its own organization was a temporary, defensive expedient until the treasonous dangerous cabal on the other side was defeated. The institutions of the Constitution were badly designed for the reality of parties.”

    It led me to wonder if we don’t need some more nuanced consideration of the distinctions between an interest group (small or large), a faction (perhaps constituting 10 to 30% of the populace?), or a party (with a 50+/- impact) that also carries along a wider variety of policies, positions, beliefs, etc. If we are a pluralistic society, we are pluralistic along many dimensions and maybe some ability to live and let live (under law or norms?) can yet be found? At least outside of a few core moral issues such as abolition-slavery, or abortion-prolife, where it appears no reasonable or logical middle ground can be found.

    But our hostess also references the wisdom of Thomas Sowell on the necessity of tradeoffs and the impossibility of achieving perfect cosmic justice.

  14. @R2L:But our hostess also references the wisdom of Thomas Sowell on the necessity of tradeoffs and the impossibility of achieving perfect cosmic justice.

    Between what we have now, and “perfect cosmic justice”, is a huge middle ground containing an orchard full of low-hanging fruit. Of course there would still be tradeoffs.

    But one thing that we’re learning from the Trump years is that many things that people said COULDN’T be done, actually could be done, if someone was willing to put the thing-to-be-done ahead of the interests of the “stakeholders” who benefit from the thing not being done.

    Charles Dickens had a name for this, because it was old even then: the Circumlocution Office.

    The Circumlocution Office was (as everybody knows without being told) the most important Department under Government. No public business of any kind could possibly be done at any time without the acquiescence of the Circumlocution Office. Its finger was in the largest public pie, and in the smallest public tart. It was equally impossible to do the plainest right and to undo the plainest wrong without the express authority of the Circumlocution Office. If another Gunpowder Plot had been discovered half an hour before the lighting of the match, nobody would have been justified in saving the parliament until there had been half a score of boards, half a bushel of minutes, several sacks of official memoranda, and a family-vault full of ungrammatical correspondence, on the part of the Circumlocution Office.

    This glorious establishment had been early in the field, when the one sublime principle involving the difficult art of governing a country, was first distinctly revealed to statesmen. It had been foremost to study that bright revelation and to carry its shining influence through the whole of the official proceedings. Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office was beforehand with all the public departments in the art of perceiving — HOW NOT TO DO IT.

    Through this delicate perception, through the tact with which it invariably seized it, and through the genius with which it always acted on it, the Circumlocution Office had risen to overtop all the public departments; and the public condition had risen to be — what it was.

    It is true that How not to do it was the great study and object of all public departments and professional politicians all round the Circumlocution Office. It is true that every new premier and every new government, coming in because they had upheld a certain thing as necessary to be done, were no sooner come in than they applied their utmost faculties to discovering How not to do it. It is true that from the moment when a general election was over, every returned man who had been raving on hustings because it hadn’t been done, and who had been asking the friends of the honourable gentleman in the opposite interest on pain of impeachment to tell him why it hadn’t been done, and who had been asserting that it must be done, and who had been pledging himself that it should be done, began to devise, How it was not to be done. It is true that the debates of both Houses of Parliament the whole session through, uniformly tended to the protracted deliberation, How not to do it. It is true that the royal speech at the opening of such session virtually said, My lords and gentlemen, you have a considerable stroke of work to do, and you will please to retire to your respective chambers, and discuss, How not to do it. It is true that the royal speech, at the close of such session, virtually said, My lords and gentlemen, you have through several laborious months been considering with great loyalty and patriotism, How not to do it, and you have found out; and with the blessing of Providence upon the harvest (natural, not political), I now dismiss you. All this is true, but the Circumlocution Office went beyond it.

    Because the Circumlocution Office went on mechanically, every day, keeping this wonderful, all-sufficient wheel of statesmanship, How not to do it, in motion. Because the Circumlocution Office was down upon any ill-advised public servant who was going to do it, or who appeared to be by any surprising accident in remote danger of doing it, with a minute, and a memorandum, and a letter of instructions that extinguished him. It was this spirit of national efficiency in the Circumlocution Office that had gradually led to its having something to do with everything. Mechanicians, natural philosophers, soldiers, sailors, petitioners, memorialists, people with grievances, people who wanted to prevent grievances, people who wanted to redress grievances, jobbing people, jobbed people, people who couldn’t get rewarded for merit, and people who couldn’t get punished for demerit, were all indiscriminately tucked up under the foolscap paper of the Circumlocution Office.

    In the story, the Circumlocution Office is not a metaphor. It’s in a real building with employees and everything, and some of the characters in the book are forced to have dealings with it, and a couple of minor characters work there. Of course it could literally be any government department whatever, they’re essentially all the Circumlocution Office no matter what the name on the building says.

  15. Spencer Pratt is 42, and the only two jobs he’s held seem to be reality tv show performer and crystal salesman. Surely, in a city the size of L.A., there’s at least one Republican with a better resume.

  16. BJ @ 0255:

    That Pratt has had only those two jobs is neither confirmation nor denial of his ability to govern; as to “one Republican with a better resume,” the point is not the quality of the resume – any number of Republicans might have a “better resume” than Donald Trump – but “what, exactly, will they do if elected to that particular position?” I contend that “high quality Republican resumes” has not only been not much of a benefit for quite a long time, it appears that the better the resume the more trouble we find ourselves in.

    Related to vote numbers (assuming it can be confirmed that such numbers are actually correct and do accurately reflect actual voting), I’m curious about some percentages; what percentage of Los Angelinos: 1) suffered damage, partially or completely, from the fires; 2) were not affected at all by the fires; 3) have a stake in “don’t change anything about LA”; 4) might suffer, financially or socially, if Pratt wins and does succeed in instituting the changes he’s been talking about?

    Pratt, like Trump, is a political outsider and it would not surprise me that Los Angeles – which leans far enough left as to be approaching horizontal – has been trained and conditioned to harbor strong resentment toward Trump and equates Pratt’s “outsiderness” similarly.

  17. Jonathan Turley on the California Conundrum:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2026/06/06/california-and-the-politics-of-low-expectations/
    “In most states, voters would be outraged by the incompetence, waste, and inefficiency. However, in the Golden State, voters shrug, as if they can demand no more from their elected officials than subpar performance.
    Call it the Politics of Low Expectations and California is the model for the nation.”

    Bonus: a personal story from the Professor that I certainly would not have expected.

  20. To understand ,it’s necessary to see through the eyes of California voters. I hope i never do.. Best i can figure is ,”It didn’t happen and it it did, it was someone else’s fault, but mostly it didn’t happen.”

  21. Most esteemed hostess, you are equating voters with ballots. That isn’t what is being counted in LA, or most deep blue locations.

    @neo:Why wouldn’t most Angelenos want that system dismantled?

    1) A good number of registered voters in LA are not “Angelinos,” they are going to be phantom voters.

    2) Don’t underestimate the idiocy of the “credentialed-not-educated” class, especially the women and soyboys. They exist to do what the hive mind says they should think. Spencer Pratt is ickMAGArepubTHOSEpeopleReeevvvilllll. People who make decisions based on their perceived good people/intentions, are not going to make decisions by suddenly caring about results.

    3) A good number of votes in LA are going to come from the government-funded machine sector. That is what you are seeing now.

    To illustrate: any nursing home is going to have an SEIU rep, who is going to be collecting ballots from the residents, who have no clue they just voted. Any school (K-university) is going to have a teacher’s union rep/political assignee, whose job it is to collect ballots. Police. Fire. The Dem party infrastructure — ANYONE who has a government job that is a “political” job — is going to be expected to gather up ballots. NGOs whose livelihood depends on government funding are going to gather ballots. Housing authorities. Parks and recreation. City lobbyists (the lobbying favors are the ones that got IL’s legendary house speaker Mike Madigan in trouble). Road workers. Any vendor providing contracted-for materials to a city entity. Social worker drops by a house for a case visit, sees ballots in a mailbox. Dysfunctional people don’t track their ballots. Post office insiders (those “return to sender” ballots sent to phantom voters gotta go somewhere…and no, the post office keeps shitty chain of custody records that Trump’s EO cannot really fix).

    Anyone who can put a deposit in the favor bank knows how much more valuable it is in closer cases like these. Those results are going to lead to months-later “ya know, my cousin/brother/sister/precinct worker needs a job. You remember how many votes came in from that precinct/my guys/my friend the fixer to help put X over the top, dontcha?”

    These are also lower turnout elections generally. So you actually don’t need that much of a “swing” to influence the outcome. My list above is easily 10-20% of the population once you factor in impacted households, and that percentage will deliver a decisive victory for the machine.

    Now, why did I say repeatedly say “ballots” not “votes”? Because once your person in any of the above categories has collected the mail-in-ballot, it can be voted however they like.

    Then consider the poll workers themselves, also hired by the machine to consider these ballots before counting them. The typical signature verification process means pulling up a name’s registration card and comparing signatures. Guess what is listed on their registration card? Party affiliation. There is also usually a voting history too. So if you are a Dem election judge, and see a long Dem party affiliation, are you scrutinizing that signature? No, you are not. If you see an R or Palisades address? Objection!

    Who you gonna go to, to complain? The judges? The ones all appointed by Dem governors? Who then have to stand for a retention election, success in which relies on Dem party slating support? Hahahahhaha.

    If not fraud, there is certainly an incentive system in place. The system cares very much about who is in charge of government, and those who work within it very much must be seen doing the work to keep them there, and that intensity is always going to outweigh the typical voter, especially in urban areas.

    Hate to be a Debbie Downer. I’ve just lived in that world, and I detest it.

  22. Spencer Pratt now officially in third place, as of late Sunday.

    This just seems like pure corruption, and I have no hope it will get rooted out until we get Republicans in the US Congress more interested in the safety and security of this country than their own bank account. Democrats are only interested in implementing Communism now.

  23. Leland: I saw that, someone sent me a screenshot and I was hoping it was not true – like the 0 votes out of 24,000 the other day in re Hilton or Pratt.

    God willing this will be a turning point. The election is being investigated. Hopefully this will expose what many suspect is happening.

    Former legislator: I think you bring up valid points. We here in Connecticut are living without representation due to such. Not that long ago, a decade(?), during election for Governor, the Secretary of State authorized that the polls in Bridgeport and New Haven – our populous democrat urban areas – remain open until 11PM ~ 3 hours past normal close. If I recall correctly. God help us, seriously.

  25. Pratt had a good observation: 43k ballots just came in, and there are 43k homeless in LA. We all knew what was going to happen. What’s amazing is that LA, and California don’t even care. This is all “in your face, and there’s nothing you can do about it.” Pratt gave it a good run, but to hell with California….let it continue to sink.

    And Commie Mandami just unveiled his plan to seize private property. Again, the voters get what they voted for.

  26. They’re not even trying to hide it in LA. They’ll claim there’s “no proof” of fraud. The state’s voting system is designed to enable fraud, rather, to guarantee fraud.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Web Analytics
↑