Where can I sign? This is the best thing that could happen to governance in this city, having at least some council members beholden to the people who live in geographic districts.

The way the council is elected now, only citywide issues ever get addressed with any effectiveness, often at the expense of very important but "neighborhoodier" issues (e.g. public safety, sidewalks, zoning, etc.).

If you have a neighborhood issue, the city council right now typically won't or can't do a thing for you unless your group is large and rich enough to donate money to an election campaign, and then you're left pleading with the mayor's office and SDOT and whatever kafkaesque bureaucracy.

A hybrid council would balance the specific interests of parts of town/districts with citywide interests, and it will give more power to areas of town where council members are very unlikely to live (and get campaign money from) right now. Then at least if you have a neighborhood-specific issue you'll have at least one ear who will be more likely to pay attention and get something done.

It's a brilliant idea that everyone should consider supporting.

No fuck this. I don't want 4 people who are like "wah, wah, wah this doesn't help Ballard at allllllllllllllll" even if it helps like 90% of the city.

No, I like that all city council members have to care about all of us. I like that each of them must look at what is best for the city as a whole, and not what is best for like 10% of it.

Seems like it would just take longer to get things done, since you would have to get all the little "community" members to sign off on shit that was bad for their constituents. It would cause massive in fighting to a system that already takes forever to get ANYTHING passed.

No, fuck this idea.

I remember signing this.

But OM is right, this won't fix things. I've lived in all the variants - total ward elections, mixed ward/at-large, and all at-large and there are problems with each type.

OM, how much time have you actually spent trying to convince one or more City Councilmembers about a neighborhood issue or your opinion on a citywide matter. Too often it's "somebody else's issue", "go see a bureaucrat", or "it's not in my committee."

I can still hear one council aide barking at me, "why do you want to talk to (name) about THAT? That's not one of her issues!"

I remember a line from one frustrated citizen, "better to be listened to by one councilmember than ignored by nine."

I agree to a point with Will, no system is perfect, but after 98 years of all at-large elections, it's time for a change.

There are those who claim that city-side issues will get ignored -- but that statement ignores the fact that city-side issues are, by definition, issues affecting every single district. District councilmembers ignore citywide issues at their peril.

Pat Murakami is just another anti density nimby. I stand against anything she stands for.

@5 - actually, we do ok in Fremont and expect S Lake Union to eventually replace one of the other neighborhoods by 2010.

This sorta makes me sad. Launched with little fanfare, what are the chances of its success?

As for the reason to support district elections: it's not about putting one district's interest over the city's interest. It's about the fact that you can have a grassroots campaign with little money that doorbells every likely voter's house in a district. In a citywide election, you can't. Money always skews politics. But the more voters you're vying for, the fewer means are available to challenge money's corruption of the political process.

Right. The one neighborhood that rules today is Downtown. Also called "outside of Seattle" in the SEEC pie charts of contributions, it is the land of developers, lawyers, bond providers, business, everything downtown, including tons of folks who live in Bellevue. It's very car oriented thus the bored tunnel. It's anti spending money in the neighborhoods. When you have districts they don't just work for their district to get a fair share -- which is good, not bad, my god we have districts for every other polity in the USA from the senate to the house and in every state leg - they also will be closer to the people and less dominated by money and less dominated by Downtown/Bellevue.

There are pros and cons of both districts and at large. Thus this proposal, which is a mixture, is good. Thinking "everything about districts is bad" or "everything about at large is bad" is unrealistic. Why not some of both, for you know, checks and balances 'n' stuff like that?

To run citywide you are running to represent 650,000 people it's more like running for governor of Vt. or Wy. and it's not really a "local government" sized race.

Here's an idea: District council government, separate from the city council. Give them control over 50% of funding for programs relevant at the district level: roads, sidewalks, community input on local development within a district, and so on. City-wide issues like transit, human services, and so on would remain fully funded at the city level but district councilors could make recommendations to the city council, with more likelihood of being heard than a random citizen. Make the districts a reasonable size (at least 30,000 people, say, and not more than 100,000, with no requirement that each district be the same size, and funding proportional to population.)

The districts could be the same or similar to the City Neighborhood Council districts, which had 2000 Census populations between 18,000 (downtown) and 75,000 (and all but downtown at 30,000 or higher).

The signature drive seems to be based on very wishful thinking. The real number needed is around 40,000 as many sign it as a petition and are not actually registered voters in Seattle. They need six months not six weeks to get that many. The 5-4 split combines more of the flaws of both systems than their advantages.
I will stil add my signature and vote. I think the best part of Seattle is when citizens give a damn and get involved.