I'm not really up on Seattle politics, but since when are district elections a more representative form of democracy than at-large? Fuck, just imagine what Congress would look like if they were all elected at-large. I guarantee you'd see more than two parties up there.

@1: At-large districts require the majority of all voter to approve any given candidate. This means that such districts actually favor middle-of-the road candidates who offend no one, not third party candidates with different ideas from the "mainstream." If all congressional candidates were elected at-large, we'd have even less political diversity, not more.

What if we just don't trust anything led by Suzie Burke? There's no spot for that.

I've liked the idea of districts for quite a while, and my initial reaction was to support this effort - but then I saw who was behind it, and now I have my doubts....

I'd be willing to give districts a chance in Seattle but with the proviso we try it for a 10 year period. Then it be brought up to a vote to either keep it or not.

I'm in line with the other folks who like the idea but distrust who's spearheading it.

I thought a 5/4 (5 districts/4 at-large positions) split made more political sense - that way you can argue that every voter in the city is still able to vote for a majority of the council (their own district rep, and the 4 at-large reps).

A 7/2 split is too close to the failed 2003 effort, imho.

I have zero respect for the Seattle City Council after this plastic bag nonsense. I don't even recycle all the paper bags I buy out of spite. They have no respect for the voters, I have no respect for their stupid laws.

Seattle is now one of the very few cities in America that does not have a district system for its council. It's absurd that we don't and it's long past time that we go to a district system.

But why reserve 2 for at-large? That doesn't make any sense. Few cities use such a system. In the numerous cities where districts are used, like LA or SF or NYC, they're ALL elected by district.

The only reason I can think of is that it gives downtown Seattle the balance of power. They can fund people who can get elected citywide. Two votes on a closely divided Council can be the deciding votes.

I wouldn't worry too much about the backers here - yes, John Fox is an elitist who hates the poor, but in cities where districts are used, they've almost always wound up leading to more progressive councilmembers. NIMBYs think they can control a district council and they will be proven wrong.

When I first moved to Seattle, a woman at the Ballard Farmer's Market cornered me trying to get me to sign a petition about this, saying how upset "everyone" was with City Council. I later learned that was Suzie Burke.

So . . . no thanks.

@9: You show em, hoss.

@ 7 - that sounds neat.

@2, I guess I was conflating proportional representation with at-large districts. An at-large office can exist under a simple majority voting system or a proportional representation system, no?

Where do I sign?

First off:

Residency requirements. You MUST live in your district for your primary residence. No exemptions or wavers allowed. The at-large just has to live within the city.

Allow a one-term exemption for any CURRENT City Council members, to move into a district of their choosing.

Go with 8 districts and only one at large. Approximately, clockwise, this. Fine tune it with specific voter counts for even distribution, but this:

#1: Northwest of Ship Canal & I-5
Ballard, Greenwood, Green Lake, Crown hill, etc

#2: Northeast of Ship Canal & I-5
UW, lake city, et al

#3: south of Ship Canal and 520, east of I5
Capitol Hill, Lake Washington central neighborhoods

#4: First hill, Beacon Hill

#5: South Seattle, Duwamish area, South Park

#6: West Seattle

#7: Downtown, ID, Port, Harbor Island area

#8: Queen Anne, Magnolia, Interbay.

That's everyone, with one at-large floating.

Term limits, even generous ones, would be nice. 12 or 16 years of service and you're out. Keep those fresh views and ideas coming in.

@14: Yes, but there are very few current applications (if any?) of proportional voting, ranked voting, or any other types of voting in this country which would benefit third parties the way you suggest, unfortunately.

if John Fox is for it, I'm agin' it.

They just want this so Magnolia can elect right wingers.

I'm with @3 and @17 - Against anything from Burke and Fox.

Given past history, their plan is likely a scheme to block transit improvements, bike lanes, and density around light rail stations. Whatever the merits of district elections, these two individuals have one track minds (anti-track minds?) against reasonable housing, transportation and environmental progress in Seattle.

@3 & 7 made my points for me, but I would add: the devil is in the map details.

Because Ballard hipsters are soooo much different from their Lake City cousins they need different representation.

No thanks.

It's high time for district elections and a mixed 7-2 system sounds like a good proposal. I'm ready to vote "Yes" right now.

What @19 said. I don't trust those folks any further than I can throw them.

I've thought 5 and 4 to be a good split.

It seems to me that 1 district rep and the 4 at large reps could form a majority, but not a veto proof majority.

Seems like district voting is a recipe for lifetime service on the council. I'm with #15. District representation has to coincide with term limits or it will be a miserable failure. Imagine if Margaret Pageler had represented Magnolia or Laurelhurst. We would never have gotten rid of her.

AMEN #9....As a West Seattle resident I say fuck all of them and let me merge with Burien or be my own city. And anything Gox wants is bound to be bad news.

That being said I like a mix of 5/4 rather than 7/2, and WS is big enough for two districts. But then again it would devolve into the dysfunction of the state legislature and wouldnt that be fun to watch!

@26 WS if you go by population vs land may not be big enough. It has be broken down by population, give or take. Land is a shitty metric getting us nonsense like a Senator from Rhode Island or North Dakota with 300,000 people having the power of a California Senator with 50,000,000 people behind them.

I'm just thinking more about this. Even if term limits aren't in the initial proposal, it's worth supporting, IF there are residency requirements. You can always add term limits later.

Very hard and firm residency requirements to me are the even bigger deal breaker. Want to represent West Seattle, Queen Anne, downtown, or Rainier Valley? You better live there. If this went live in say 2014's elections, you can grandfather in the current incumbents with a free pass against residency--let them pick a district to stand in. They'd just have to move there in the next cycle or they're out.

I don't care who's floating this proposal (and John Fox is certainly not an elitist or against poor people or maintaining environment), it makes sense. Seattle is huge. Anyone who wants to run for Council has to have a LOT of money behind them to get their names known. The result is too obvious to need explanation.

@28 which would just work in the favor of rich people, who can afford to own multiple properties.

So you tie it to a primary residence. It's not difficult and if you want to get fancy you lay in some form of fair penalties (like losing your seat) if you don't live there. If it's just a problem against a decent number of the Council being wealthy, it's not really within our power to legislate around that unfortunately.

Suzie Burke figures this is the cheapest way to buy 5 city council seats. The woman is scum and bad for Seattle.

John Fox is the most reliably wrong person in Seattle.

@33: What? Was Roger Valdez stripped of his title?

@10: There are a number of US cities that use a split system like Houston, Philadelphia and Indianapolis.

The at-large members are a kind of hedge against the council becoming too parochial.

I support district-elected members. It's asinine that you can get a seat on the King County Council or in the state legislature with fewer votes than you need to win an election for City Council.

I could be talked into supporting this - but only on the condition that the initial lines aren't drawn out in the initiative, but are instead drawn out by an impartial body (say Seattle Ethics and Elections).

Their proposed map: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/…

Not many surprises in it.

#37: Drawing the district boundaries up front is a great part of this proposal: you know exactly what you're voting for. If we left it up to a districting commission, transition would be delayed. And there would be dozens more "mrs. field's" complaining that they don't know what they're getting.

People complaining about John Fox or Suzie Burke: Please, pay attention to the content, and to the broad base of supporters. #32, you're wrong if you really think Suzie thinks she can "buy 5 city council seats." She may be wealthy, but she's not that wealthy. Furthermore, she knows darn well District 6 will elect Democrats; look at the voting record in the area! My area of Fremont and up Phinney Ridge is consistently 80 - 90% Democrat. Suzie truly wants to return some power to the neighborhoods. We'll always fight with her issue by issue, but at least we'll be fighting her, and not downtown developer and Bellevue funded representatives in addition.

Regarding the split: We lost an all nine districts measure by a few points in 2003. 7-2 is a compromise. Seven is better than nothing. And far better than 5.

#37--I made a mistake; my first comment #38 was for #36, not you.

Regarding the map, there is a small error in the version created by the Times; Eastlake north of Lynn and Roanoke are in District 4, not 3.

City Council District lines should be the same as School Board lines. This would encourage School Board to be a stepping stone up to City Council, generating a higher quality pool of candidates for the thankless but essential job of School Board Director.

@16: I agree with you that coming up with a fair system for single-member districts is tough. But there's nothing hard about proportional representation. Anyone who wants to could offer a slate of 9 candidates, in ranked order. Each voter selects one slate (no ranking or approval voting or anything weird like that). Then, depending on the relative vote share for each slate, their top N candidates are elected.

#41: The School Board district lines do not follow neighborhood boundaries nearly as well as the SDN proposal. Also, I suspect they do not have balanced populations.