Supporters of district elections, which Seattle voters have rejected at least five times (in 1914, 1926, 1975, 1995, and 2003) hope that a hybrid district-at large system will finally win voter approval this year. According to consultant John Wyble, districts supporters are getting ready to start collecting signatures for a district elections initiative soon. In the meantime, they’ve formed the requisite Facebook group. And they’ve done some polling, which shows a hybrid system—with five city council members elected from geographical districts, and four elected at large (so that every citizen would get to vote for a majority of the council)—has substantial support (around 48 percent), although many people (36 percent) are undecided.
District Elections Coming to a Ballot Box Near You
Comments are closed.
But Erica, what if people steal the ballots like they steal groceries from stores?
You know, theft is a very real and pertinent topic. Why didn’t you include this as a threat to Democracy?
o.m.g. reeaaaallly? still not over it? let the woman work, for crying out loud
Isn’t that what QFC and its employees were trying to do? To work? To run a business? How dare Erica steal from that.
No, no, nawwww how dare US for detracting from Erica’s work
ZOMG the INJUSTICE!
Having some city council members who represent a specific region and some who represent all regions sounds like a recipe for making city council procedings even more Byzantine than they already are. Maybe somebody thinks that’s good thing.
Will facebook become the new landline of politics?? For the past decade, if you didn’t have a home phone you wouldn’t get polled at election time.
So, if I don’t have a facebook account, will my candidate of choice assume I won’t support them or that I don’t exist? That could be a dangerous assumption.
@5 You’re on the right track but not keeping up with the times.
Twitter will be used for polling. All polling will be conducted using anonymous signatures.
Just like the comments section of the Slog, which so accurately represents the readership, rather than special interest groups.
Definitely like the idea of mixed district elections. If you look at who gets elected to office in town, it’s folks who have built up enough money and connections to move product. Not to say I want every rabble rouser to win, but it sure would make it more interesting if a wider slate were actually competitive. And no, this wouldn’t be the silver bullet to unfortunate elected leadership, but it certainly seems like a step in the right direction.
http://www.mydoorsign.com/Door-Signs/Sho…
Top five reasons for districts:
1) We currently have a pay-to-play system. Candidates must raise $300,000 plus – making it all but impossible for anyone without either deep pockets or connections to get elected.
2) Five districts would mean candidates would doorbell and actually talk to citizens and not just special interest groups.
3) Districts would have 120,000 citizens, not 600,000. In a mixed district system you (yes, you) become more powerful.
4) Neighborhood issues would have real champions. Instead on nine-mini mayors who rotate committees and avoid responsibility you gain more accountability. (Case in point: SE District doesn’t get plowed and other one does – you get angry and demand action!)
5). Maybe, just maybe, we would have some young candidates – some more interesting folks running and system of checks on balances.
Need more evidence – go see Milk.
Amen to districts, and amen @9!
I think this is a great idea. It’s something we need to have a council that is way more effectual than the current panel of nincompoops is.
Right now, the only decisions that are made are those that are good for the city “as a whole”–local interests in neighborhoods be damned. With district representation, some councilmembers will need to be responsive to the needs of specific areas of town (e.g. sidewalks and public safety in North and South Seattle) that otherwise get no attention from at-large councilmembers.
A hybrid system is a great compromise. I’m all for it.
I like this idea. Lived that way in another city. It worked great. Right now there is no one accountable to me and my part of the city who we can get rid of if they do not. Need the at-large to represent broader interests, otherwise it is like the school board just voting for their own area only.
Wish it were 7 districts and 4 at-large. And, while we are at it, how about neighborhood councils and district councils that cover the whole city and reps that we vote for on a real ballot. Instead of the bizarro anarchy we have where loud mouths and social service do-gooders purport to represent the residents.
Meh.
This won’t fix things. I’ve lived in all three systems (wards, at-large, and mixed) and there are problems with all three systems.
But I’ll vote for it anyway. Fat lot of good it will do.
Top Five Reasons to Oppose District Elections:
1. Frank Chopp. Here is a powerful legislator that is unaccountable to his district and will never have a challenger. While he’s done many good things, he doesn’t not reflect the interests of the 43rd (i.e. renters rights, Viaduct, etc.) He will never go and the whole state AND the 43rd suffers.
2. Julia Patterson. Held up the third runway for years. Maybe that was a good thing, but was probably only a good thing for the people of SeaTac, not the rest of the region or state. There are many Julia Pattersons out there.
3. Let’s say your neighborhood rep opposed your idea? Tough luck. The ‘at-large’ rep will most likely not go against the districted rep or will only do so sparlingly.
4. Districted Councils are more open to corruption. See Minneapolis City Council, San Diego City Council, Atlantic City City Council, Baltimore City Council, the list goes on. These cities are not ‘special’ and most of these bribery cases were about zoning, the number one issue for most neighborhood groups. Yes, it will happen here; we aren’t special and it’s not worth it.
5. District Reps are easy to pick off by the Mayor (or whatever Executive) during election season. Sure, a lot of Councilmembers are seemingly cozy with the Mayor now, but many of the ‘people’s favorites” would have been defeated long ago by this Mayor had there been districts.
The system we have now isn’t perfect by any stretch. Councilmembers are too tentative and rarely use the office to its fullest. However, the district system is not an improvement. It’s worse.
I wonder if anyone who reads the Slog saw Milk?
It was a switch to district elections that made it possible for him to be elected.
I don’t have a strong opinion on district or at large. It amuses me that so many proponents of both ascribe so much evil to the other.
I do think the hybrid is a promising idea, and I hope it’s pursued.
Please note the same system that created Councilmember Milk is the same system created the councilmember who killed him. (He, too, had a neighborhood constituency to which he felt he had to be accountable.)
Of course, the case of Milk being elected is compelling, but not compelling enough to change to districts.
Good news and I wish them luck. I also wish they’d go for a higher number of distrcits. The 7-2 split would be ideal.
Full Districts only lost by a small percentage of Seattle voters. Including a couple of At Large seats might be the winning combo.
Seems obvious to me that having council members be accountable to the entire city is better than having them all fight with each other for benefit of their particular hood.
The folks who support district elections (and it’s been some of the same folks multiple times) tend to be political consultants who will benefit from a changed electoral model.
These people are kidding themselves if they think District elected Councilmembers will be more responsive to their constituents. Like the district elected King County Council members are anything to emulate. I don’t see a lot of turnover there, in fact there has been more turnover on the City Council than the County Council over the last 10 or 15 years. Then there is the District Primaried and Citywide elected School Board which hasn’t done a whole lot for us.
Ratcity-
The County Council has more political diversity than it would if it were elected at large. Also imagine how much money it would take for County Council to At Large in the nations 14th largest county. Moreover, if you follow those elections like you say, you know that Ferguson was able to doorbell his District and defeat a long term incumbent.
@13 weak analysis…
1. “Frank Chopp?” You could have said the same of George Bush and the country. The 43rd is at fault, not the possibility of districts.
2. “Julia Patterson.” Hun?
3. “Tough luck.” Yup. That’s called democracy.
4. “Districted Councils are more open to corruption…” Really? Stripper-gate, Blagojevich, Nixon, Ted Stevens – all “at large”. Size has nothing to due with corruption. Wrong.
5. Flawed logic and really more an argument for districts.
@19 King County is not apples to apples -districts are MUCH larger, elections are partisan and no one know what they do (BTW: courts, jails, METRO, …) and the system that elects Seattle School Board system is so stupid and flawed start to finish.
A mixed district system is not perfect, we may ditch it in twenty years but it might get us a few less Jim Comptons, David Dellas, Miley Cyrus, Richard McIvers, Heidi Wills, – fill in your favorite.
Trust me on this. I play an expert on TV.
Seattle and Detroit are the only large cities in the US to elect all of their city council at-large. Every other big city (over 500K) elects all or most of their council by districts.
Time for Seattle to grow up. I’m anxious to see a draft of the actual charter amendment language, however. The devil is in the details, such as how do they handle redistricting? Do they leave it to the council or a council-appointed panel, where gerrymandering can be guaranteed to occur? Or will it be the responsibility of some independent panel or commissioner?
#22: See http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.htm…