District-only voting, or not
5 12 2007I went in to last night’s county council without having made up my mind on the idea, and came out of it less convinced than before. Passions are running high, but I’m really not all that certain that it’s warranted at this stage of the game.
As you’ve no doubt heard, the Council decided 6-Sam Crawford to send the issue back to voters next year. There were two primary reasons given for doing so:
- The ballot statement last time was confusing
- There was no real debate prior to the vote
Of the two, I find the first one particularly compelling. As a fan of martial arts movies a poorly written or misleading title is in the top five of things that make me especially crazy. Have you ever seen Bionic Ninja? There were lots of ninjas but if any of them were bionic then they didn’t bother to mention it. Don’t get me started on Thunder Ninja Kids 3: The Hunt for the Devil Boxer.
The second proposition, though it has more emotional appeal, is also interesting. I’m one of those people who like big drawn out debates on policy things like this (see every third post on this blog) and I’m eager to see what comes out of this.
There’s an interesting debate to be had here. At the meeting it was brought up that many representatives on the national and statewide levels won’t give you the time of day if you’re not in that district. Whenever I get an automated response from a member of the US House Leadership that says, essentially, “Thanks, but as a courtesy to our colleagues we don’t respond to people outside our Congressional District” I want to call up their office and say bad words to the poor intern who answers the phone. I understand their reasoning, but I don’t agree with it.
There were other arguments in favor of county-wide voting, such as the idea that since the Council represents the whole county then they should be accountable to the whole county. I don’t disagree with that, but I’m not yet sold.
On the other side, I like the idea of having my representative who represents my area who I can call and say bad words to whenever they do something that I think is dumb. I know that’s not a very persuasive, but it’s the sort of thing I worry about.
It has been suggested that the switch will help Democrats and I think that’s true just not as dramatically as people seem to think. Looking at the map, Democrats should do just fine on the Council under district-only voting. Their chances aren’t too great in District 2, but the results of Ken Mann’s campaign seem to indicate that it’s not forever out of reach. For that matter I’m not sure that the Council should even be 100% Democrat, but I’ll leave it at that for now before I get myself in too much trouble.
I haven’t made up my mind on this yet, but the discussion so far has been interesting and hopefully the passions will stay hot long enough to get people organised on both sides. The Council, most of it anyway, has thrown down the gauntlet and since it’s going to go to the ballot anyway now lets make sure that no one can ever say that there wasn’t robust, and at least mostly civil, public debate from both sides.
Clearly many people feel strongly about this, but are they bad enough dudes to put a campaign together and see it through to the end?
Any idea how much it costs to put this back on the ballet?
Thats a very good question. I don’t think it’ll wind up costing too much extra if anything at all because the Council decided to put in on the general election ballot.
…but in Shaolin Wooden Men, there were wooden men, plus a drunken master etc…
the ballot statement was reviewed and approved. It wasn’t confusing.
It was presented in multiple forums, covered in the Herald all through the testimoney and debate at the charter review committee.
It passed by a supermajority and some have said as high as 78%. I am somewhat skeptical of that number, but I have been too lazy to confirm one way or another.
I suspect that it will pass by a landslide again.
Contrary to Watts’ suggestion that District only voting supports only the special interests, I suggest exactly the opposite.
I know folks in both parties who are opposed to district only voting,
and I know folks in both parties who are opposed to At Large voting for district representation.
If the voters vote to keep district only voting, I wonder if the Special interests will ask us to vote on it again in 09?
Wait until 2011 when the 10 year redistricting process happens, that will be interesting I think.
Off Topic… what is this nonsensical nonjudiciary non partisan nonsense?
The average guy just wants to know if the candidate is an R or a D. I have been told that partisan races is truth in advertising so to speak by folks that normally could care less about politics and they have suggested that is one reason that they don’t participate in odd year elections? (not sure I buy it)
Oh yeah, Arnold is a girlieman!
I’ll address the rest of your comment when I’ve got a little more time, but according to my math the measure passed with 61% of the vote. I’ve heard a lot of the crazy talk of super-majority and all of that, and frankly it’s just dumb.
The best source currently, if you’re interested, are the abstracts put out by the auditor.
Yeah, I thought that high number was hogwash, myself.
I got 67% on one count and 63% on another count.
60% is a supermajority.
The idea of districts is not inherently bad, but the size of Districts and the overall jurisdiction -County- and its charter do seem important.
Having representatives of Districts actually live there insures accountability to that District.
Having representatives of districts elected County-wide insures accountability to that County.
So, both elements working together would respond directly to each concern.
That’s also the way it used to be in the County, before the last Charter ballot.
It is also the way it currewntly works in the City of Bellingham.
Doesn’t that seem fair?
Let’s vote on it again, now that people understand the options!
Thanks for the comment John, but what about the concern that countywide voting would prevent political minorities from being represented?
P3: Sorry, by supermajority I meant two thirds, more on that in a minute…
1pecrcentage point lower than the results…I thought Supermajority was a 60% but maybe it is 66%…
John,
We the voters are not ignorant, we understood what we were voting for the first time. And we will understand it when we vote down this one by the same margin this time.