I’ve never been all that enthusiastic about the city council’s move to district elections—I didn’t like the district boundaries, and thought it should have been 9-0 or 5-4 rather than this weird 7-2 district/at-large split. I’m also not convinced that it makes it easier to run a grassroots campaign, as big money now buys an even bigger advantage in these smaller districts. Public financing is the the more pressing reform. Or if you really want to fix what ails the council, their’s a much better and bolder reform than district elections: Proportional ranked choice voting.
But if you had hoped that the move to districts might shake up the composition of the council, forcing some of the old timers out, then you’ll be pleased with the news that council member Tom Rasmussen has decided not to run for re-election in Council District 1:
“I am profoundly grateful to have served the people of Seattle for more than 25 years, both as a member of the City Council, as Director of the Mayor’s Office for Senior Citizens and for former City Councilmember Jeanette Williams. I’ve sought to contribute to Seattle in ways that I hope will be meaningful for future generations.
“This wasn’t an easy decision but, it is the right one. It is now time to direct my efforts toward the same causes I have always been most passionate about — in exciting new ways.
Well, it probably wasn’t all that hard a decision. Rasmussen may have been the most vulnerable incumbent on the council, facing a credible challenger in community activist Chas Redmond, and a vocally dissatisfied constituency back home in West Seattle. Nobody wants to be conlined. Better to go out a winner.
As for what it means for city government, I dunno. Didn’t have much of a relationship with Rasmussen, who was good on some issues and not-so-good on others. Like I wrote earlier this week, Nick Licata and his passionate liberalism will be missed. But I never really thought of Rasmussen as standing for much of anything. So I’m happy to see somebody else get a chance.
So… is Jean Godden the next to go? She’s got a couple of credible challengers in District 4, and, well, let’s be honest: She’s very old. But Godden pretty much retired to the council, so it’s hard to see much motivation for her to retire from it.
The opportunity has never been more ripe for community activist, labor leaders, environmental leaders, independents to run – Seattle, and Seattleites have a huge opportunity to step up and make their voices heard since redistricting, and especially since these council seats are vacant. Even more possible, the idea of running as a coalition of outsiders, who refuse corporate money, as Sawant has demonstrated to be possible. Or maybe a coalition will form over a single hot-topic, such as a slate of anti-tunnel candidates. There are opportunities this year more than any other year.
The days when I’d vote for anyone just because they said they were gay are looooong gone!
proportional ranked choice: like Palliser’s decimal coin system, many rational things are too new, or complex, with advocates who fail to explain even what they are, orwho don’t work on starting small (use it for say school board to elect a chair first — we need some experience, most have no idea what it is!) and are outside the bound of the possible at present. “I didn’t like the district boundaries, and thought it should have been 9-0 or 5-4 rather than this weird 7-2 district/at-large split.” um, that’s not as weird as 5-4 is it? we have seven hills, after all! And it’s easy to criticize boundaries if you don’t come up with alternatives. The boundaries in the 7 districts are great! West Seattle (1) is a natural community. Se Seattle (2) North Seattle, ditto. Centering Cap Hill (3) and Ballard (6) in their own districts makes perfect sense. Same with U district in 4. Sure, quibble about Fremont and Wallingford or why is green lake with 6 not 4, but if you shift them something else objectionable happens to the map somewhere else. there are no perfect district lines and one proposal for nine districts had one split down the middle by the Duwamish! the map we got now has compact sensible districts unlike say 11th, or 46th. LDs or that new crazy cong. district with reichert that goes over the mountains. .. As for 7-2, not weird, in fact reasonable and sensible, since after LOSING with 9-0 coupla times by just 5 or 6 points, very savvy to give up on that and go 7-2 and ahem, win. To say it should be 5-4 or 9-0 those are great, but somehow 7-2 is weird — well THAT makes no sense at all. just sounds arbitrarily dissatisfied with 7-2. I personally was for 9-0 but would have taken 7-2 and voted yes, but would have voted for 5-4 too if that was the only one on the ballot. You take what steps you can. The 7-2 we got is awesome since the at large system really empowered the big money backing the candidates with broad but shallow name ID. resulting in a constant stream of pro downtown pro developer pro landowner policies and decisions that has been NOT in favor of the people. running in a district of 640K people was just too much, it was not local. it’s like running for congress, or a small state. districts of 88K people are a much better size and hyou can win a primary with what, 15K votes? that allows for real progressive face to face accountability to voters who know you. YES, we need public finance, but hello our somewhat cranky at large council didn’t conform it to districts, had they done so it would have passed. And YES money is always a problem, but with districts the more localish activists now have a chance and don’t get asked “but can you raise $350K?” Now, we have local neighborhood folks and housing affordability advocates running who would not have a chance with all at large system.
Why even Goldy would have a chance! We see many candidates running ofr districts now who really would have no chance with at large. The opposition to districts largely came from folks who had a slice of power in the old system — incumbents, those with access, those in a group with access, those with their own blog who didn’t get it that voters felt utterly disconnected and while not “angry” felt …..distant from the council. Those close to the council members, those who knew a few personally, largely were okay with at large. but not most voters. But hey if you want PRV or different boundaries there’s an election this fall and anyone can write up a charter amendment and file it, the city clerk is right there at city hall…
@3
I was very clear at the time why I voted against districts. Read it again, and then go fuck yourself.
Goldstein once bloviated about running for office (to much eye rolling), but then a man named Nick came along, unzipped, and Goldstein found a better use for the skill set he acquired at the Stranger.
@5 So, for years the lazy trollish taunt was “Go get a job.” Then when I took a job at The Stranger it was “Go get a real job.” And now that I’ve got a great job being paid well to do good, it’s “Stop sucking Nick’s cock, you sell-out.”
I’m beginning to think that none of this critique is really about whether or not I have a job.
Goldy @6: Your response to @5 is well taken. So why do you descend to the same puerile level @4?
tranquilate compa. *public finance, the damned at large council made public finance not conform to districts. very slimy. so now, just fix it — let’s put in public finance. easier to do now, since 7 seats are smaller and cheaper campaigns. QED districts helps public finance. *to say only 9-0 or 5-4 make sense and 7-2 doesn’t …does not compute. If 9 is good 7 is 7/9ths as good. like the mayoral $15 an hour is really $13.50 an hour considering inflation, but it’s still a large wage hike, and is a good compromise solution. an awesome one, in fact. yay sawant. besides without seeing the actual map for 5 or 9, one really can’t make a case those are better options. *the race concern. valid concern, but turns out, not to worry. white seattle often votes for minorities, we are not like yakima (see: guitierrez kenney, sherry harris, norm rice, ron sims, gary locke, mciver, sawant, etc.). so likely we will see some minorities from districts other than 2. oh wait, we already know it’s highly likely we will in district 3! so that’s two. so where the at large council often had just one minority then got two due to sawant, and a districted council will have two, too, hello, no reason to be concerned we’re going backwards on diversity. finally, in the other districts ie 1, 4, 5, with active campaigns there’s several minorities running, apparently they think they can get elected so again — not to worry.
with districts producing LOTS of activist type candidates now, you’d think it’s clear now that districts are a progressive move …..we’re seeing all kinds run advocating for the homeless, for affordable housing, etc. and many of these candidates obviously would not have had a chance under at large. so, yes, districts working well.