The discussion of districts, by opponents, is approaching bizarre fantasies.

We know what kind of people Seattle elects in Districts. They're not republicans. They're folks named Jessyn Farrell, the north seattle (46th LD) former TCC person who's pro transit pro density all the way. elected in north seattle. Ditto Gerry Pollet, Frockt. Sharon Nelson, very liberal. Jeanne Kohl Welles, super liberal. Adam Kline, very liberal. Tomiko Santos. Pettigrew. Lots of women and minorities. THEY are not the folks handing out millions to billionaire chris Hansen, THEY are not the folks running a spd that beats up citizens -- THEY are the people who BOTH fund social services/want higher taxes AND look out for interests of their districts. In enlightened way.

You want a better bench? How about a better Democratic bench from SEattle? Now tell me quick, ONE at large city council member who ran for and obtained higher office.....can't think of any? Me neither. At large just means you dilute out and wash out in the public conscienceness. What do districts get us? Someone like Ed Murray fights like HELL for his districts 'special' concern, gay rights, and in 18 years we win and it's seen as a state wide moral concern! Way to go Ed! And then promoted to mayor.

Face it Goldy, you're smoking acid again, Seattle is like 70% democratic, it's evenly spread out. Not one district in Seattle will elect a republican.

But one or two might elect a socialist.

And the at large we got right now? they serve paul allen, chris Hansen, they waste $200 million on the mercer remodel causing worse transit and travel times and in YOUR neighborhood the sidewalks are broken and crumbling, your kid can't ride in the dangerous bike sharrow lane in the door opening zone, how stupid was that, and your bus takes longer to get downtown, and in lots of seattle, you don't have remodeled sidewalks beautified with $200 million in public money, you have ditches and gravel and no sidewalks at all.

this government is not just out of touch, but districts -- the way we DO representative democracy folks -- is part of the answer.

ask yourself this. is there one single opponent of council districts who loves at large so much they suggest changing the state senate or county council to at large? none of them suggest that. so all their arguments are just piffle.

vote for districts, we can afford both enhancements to downtown AND your neighborhood, we'll have the same caring liberal environmental voters electing pro transit environmentalists as we have now, ANd when you can't understand why they won't put in a traffic signal on your block you have someone you can call and hold responsible. and meanwhile, MOST of your city legislative votes are at large still (two at large, one for mayor). Goldy's logic (if gop is for it, vote against) is incredibly stupid and ignorant. Winston Churchill said he'd walk with socialists and communists to get workers' comp. I guess in that situation Goldy would have eschewed alliance with his enemy. The districts provision is widely backed by liberals and progressives who are using faye garneau's money for progressive ends and who are happy to have bipartisan support. Goldy, the republican party was against slavery, and still is, does that make you for it?

Finally, let's say they elect someone in Seattle. who gives a fuck? he or she will be outvoted 8-1, but Goldy, really, if they have a majority in a district, they are entitled to a city councilmember! Just like in a conservative city -- say Yakima, -- that has at large, the districts may produce a democrat or a latino and they are entitled to a representative! it's called democracy. Try it you'll like it!

vote YES for districts, and the immediate impacts will be these:

1. all 9 are up again in 2015.
2. likely the older ones, Gooden, Licata, Conlin, Rasmussen -- won't run again! Esp. because the at large seats are only a two year transitional term.
3. there will be 7 district slots each with voters from some 88,000 people. Say 40K vote in a district city council election -- you can have a primary with 4 people where it's 15,000 to 10,000 to 9,000 to 6,000. Or a general that's like 21,000 to 18,000. This is really a much smaller election and it means PEOPLE WITHOUT CITYWIDE ACCESS TO BIG MONEY can win, or compete, thus you open the door to more women, minorities, progressives, youth, renters. What the council lacks today is renters and youth, btw. We will have wide open races in 2015.
4. In 2017 the at large run again. same year as mayor. going forward MOST of your votes remain at largeish (two at large and mayor).
5. Having all seven run in the '19 and later elections means when it's not the at large year, having only ONE race to worry about the average voter can actually MEET THE CANDIDATES WHO WILL DOORBELL LIKE HELL. Or meet in coffees in the neighborhood. Face to face democracy is a good thing. When we run now, with 4 or 5 up at a time and 3 or 5 candidates for each one, the average voters is just overwhelmed with having to learn about 20 candidates citywide and you don't meet them face to face. Again: face to face local democracy is a good thing.

in all this it's not likely the 8%-and-falling republicans can win anything. More likely is a socialist or green party can win, and push the democrats to the left, so if you're left, vote for districts!