You may be surprised to learn that I don’t necessarily disagree with today’s Seattle Times editorial urging voters to “stick with electing council members citywide.” But while there are strong arguments on both sides of the district elections issue, it’s too bad that the Times tends to focus on the weak ones.
The typical pitch for the change is to encourage more candidates who can raise sufficient campaign cash to run for office and let neighborhood voices be heard more clearly.
Election 2009 has more candidates running for council than any time in recent memory. At last count, 14 challengers were seeking two open seats or taking on incumbents. Many are solid candidates.
Define “solid candidate.” Nearly half of the challengers have declared for the same open seat, and most serious political observers would describe only a handful of the candidates as solid. And no disrespect to either Jesse Israel or David Ginsberg, but unless they can crank the fundraising up to eleven, I doubt incumbents Nick Licata and Richard Conlin will ever feel particularly threatened.
At best, this slate represents a triumph of quantity over quality, yet even with that caveat still qualifies as one of the strongest fields in years. For whatever reason, recruiting dynamic council candidates has proven more difficult than pulling teeth, and this cycle’s atypical surge in political lemmings does little to recommend the current citywide system.
The council is neither stagnant nor a place of minimum turnover. In 2007, Bruce Harrell and Tim Burgess joined after running citywide. Both are solid additions.
I forgot Bruce Harrell was even on the council, and while there’s no doubt that Tim Burgess ranks as one of the most competant challengers to run in recent memory, he defeated the polar opposite in the form of David Della. The 2007 cycle did not produce an inspiring field, and likewise does little to recommend citywide elections.
The city needs experts in broader, complicated areas, such as electricity and land use. Members elected by district are programmed to fight for a neighborhood, not a more encompassing citywide interest.
And we’re electing those electricity and land use experts now? Successful politicians tend to be generalists, which is why they hire experts to advise them and run specific departments. Besides, why exactly would an expert be less likely to come from a neighborhood district? Our neighborhoods don’t have electricity or land?
“The bedrock of good government is cooperation, not Balkanization,” said George Allen, senior vice president for government relations at the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
Uh-oh… the business establishment is arguing to maintain the status quo. Now you’re really beginning to lose me.
I voted against district elections the last time it was on the ballot, but after reading this Times editorial I may be leaning the other way. This proposal is less drastic than the last, electing five council members by district, while retaining four at-large seats, so it theoretically balances the best and worst features of both systems. And I’m not so sure that adding a few narrowly focused neighborhood voices would be a bad thing for a council whose culture of polite cooperation has left it incapable of serving as a necessary check and balance on our politically adept mayor and his ruthless henchmen.
Or maybe not. The most dubious claim I’ve heard from district proponents is that it would help take the influence of money out of the election equation. Yeah… right. In fact, just the opposite might be true. Smaller, lower profile, district elections would provide a juicy target for political consultants and wealthy special interests, creating demographically condensed races in which a large donation or an even larger independent expenditure could have a lot more impact than in a citywide contest.
But regardless of all the arguments pro and con, my instinct tells me that the debate may be moot. The previous measure just barely failed after little if any campaign on its behalf, and in our current, Obama-inspired, reformist political climate, I’m guessing that this new district/at-large hybrid proposal will be damn hard to beat without a well-financed campaign against it… and damn better rhetoric than we saw today in the Seattle Times.
goldy should get a bachelor condo with bruce ramsey. it would be like crossfire 24-7!.
Horses Ass is now officially “What Goldy thinks of the day’s Seattle Times editorial.”
Troll @2,
You just figure that out? I do media criticism. I’ve always done media criticism. HA’s original tagline was “An almost daily blog on WA politics and the press.”
Media criticism and commentary, that’s always been my primary focus. Occasionally, I also do a little reporting, but never intended to, and don’t really enjoy it.
Results of King County Council elections by district and Seattle School Board primary elections by district followed by area wide general election convince me that district elections do not improve the haphazard and generally unsatisfactory results of local elections. Either way there is too much money involved, the system can be gamed and three quarters of those elected turn out to be unsuited for the job.
Electing council members by district will strengthen the hand of the Mayor. Boston elects by district, and the result is a constantly quarreling council that poses no oversight threat to the Mayor whatsoever. I’m not sure what we need in Seattle is an even less effective council. The only ones I can think of who would benefit from election by district is the Mayor, and the fringe candidates that can’t fundraise across the city. Running for city council takes a lot of dedication and hard work. District elections are seen as a shortcut for some who don’t want to or can’t put forth the effort to win city wide.
Here’s another idea: keep the at-large city council, but create neighborhood district councils that control the implementation details of a subset of city programs most relevant at the neighborhood level.
The city government including the council should take the broad view, create mandates and goals for the whole city, and fund programs. But neighborhoods should have some control over things like roads, sidewalks, the appearance and siting of new development, and so on. (But not social services or transit or ecological issues that cross neighborhood boundaries.)
Set the neighborhood districts at a reasonable size, say 30K-100K each with one council member for each 10K people, and give them direct control over some of the money doled out by the city. This also creates a built-in lobbying system for neighborhoods because concerns can be funneled through district council members who talk with city council members. This gives a voice to neighborhoods without creating a city-wide ward system prone to financial manipulation and corruption.
To add: districts like this already exist, but their influence is minimal. Give them some actual power and accountability and you could transform them into a real voice for neighborhoods that still leaves city-wide decisions in the hand of city-wide leaders.
Goldy, now that Olympia is the puppet master of the Times, you might be seeing more stories from them that you agree with. ;-)
This initiative is a great idea. Its not even as far as we should go to fix what ails us.
One of my gravest political sins was working against the original city council by district proposal, because Tom (Darth Vader) Stewart, the epitome of what was wrong in our city at that time, wanted it. He served his time in leg irons and home detention over his illegal acts and typical GOP corruption on that campaign. Typical GOP-er.
Nonetheless, for all the wrong reasons, (remember his helipad he wanted on Delridge way?) he was right on that one. The idea that the city is balkanized by this process is a truly laughable argument, and and an insult to the electorate and the candidates running. They are fully capable of realizing a common good. The real issue is not even money- its the ability of an energetic candidate to doorbell districts and go sell themselves to their electorate, without a lot of money. That can be done in a campaign run by district, but not citywide.
The best evidence of this need is the abject failure of our current council. The good folks could run and win in either system. The deadwoood on our council runs on neighborhood issues, then fades into the black of downtown establishment influence as soon as they can, once in office, and ignores the ‘hoods.
The Steinbrueck’s and Licata’s are exceptions, the Dragos are the rule. In fact if Drago runs for mayor, it may the only issue that gets me excited to support our incumbent.
Hey folks, other cities do fine under this concept. Let me ask- are we thriving in our city government under this current system with a great government? If you say yes, well, God bless you, and keep reading the “Times” in an unthinking fashion. If you think we have problems with our governance, try a new way.
As to the idiocy of the Seattle Times, all I can say is, regardless of troll’s comments, when Goldy also reminded us that George Allen and the downtown dictators like the current system, it told me immediately if I did not already know, that this must be a good idea. When I read that early today, I threw down my paper, and had to collect myself before I could finish the editorial.
Sign up for the measure, and bring on the debate.
District elections in San Francisco in 2000 brought smart progressives to the Board of Supervisors (city council), allowed for more affordable grassroots campaigns, and helped balance out the power in SF.
I think we should have district based council members with some at-large and always did. I’d prefer seven districts, but can live with this. I’d sort of hoped that the campaign would build up a head of steam and get the kinks worked out better before launching/dropping/relaunching.
Cascadian: The only way your idea would be at all fair is if the reps are elected at the polls. Los Angeles just launched elected neighborhood councils. The anarchy we have now should not be more empowered than it is — and it DOES have a lot of control over money and what projects get done. Here is the thing. Supposedly your neighborhood association is represented in a district council. Don’t have a community council or neighborhood association? Start one. You can also belong to more than one. Or, you can start a non-profit and get yourself on the district council. So, if you are retired or self-employed then you can join a small cabal of likewise retired/self-employed/employed by non-profit people and run your area. Oh yeah, of course you are run by the Mayor through the Department of Neighborhoods.
So, a system that includes elections and proportional representation like LA, Memphis and DC have could be introduced. If you want that system to actually ‘stick’ it has to be introduced as a charter amendment.
Ironically, most cities with strong Ward or District based governance get their neighborhood organizations and dollars due to the very nature of that form of government.
Praise Jeebus, somebody has been paying attention!
Five council districts will divide the tally of likely voters into chunks of about 25,000-30,000. A determined candidate backed by motivated supporters can reach about half of those with leg power. A good candidate, with positive ideas and a willingness to stick their neck out and actually stand for something can reach those voters and gain their support. They at least have an odds on chance of making it past the primary and making a decent showing in the general election without having to whore themselves out to the DBA, the Urban League and the Chamber.
It seems to me that the main argument for representative government is … well representation?
The main job, IMHO, of the City Council and the School Ctee should be to convey the peoples will or help focus that will .. as in “leadership!”
If you want to HIRE experts, that is probably better to do in the old fashioned way of going out and hiring folks who are not likely to also be the people running for office.
Under Mayor N, Seattle has lost most of its traditional sense of being a community of neighborhoods. A good deal of that, it seems to me, comes from the disenfranchisement of the Council but also from a loss of identity of couincil memebrs with theur communities.
To be bluntm, I am pretty political but actually am nto even sure who on the council or the schyool committee represents me. That is true even though we live in one the Cities most influential areas .. Cap Hill.
Years ago, George bebnson was OUR councilman. He ran a drug store around the corner and was an integral and available part of the Cap Hill community.
Seattle is growing a new neighborhood, Allentown or Bell Town, or whatever. I would call it “Downtown” and DT has no resemblance at all to the old DT comprised of folks with the DTs .
We are aslo morphing in other ways. The meagrich have mpved out of the Heights and Broadmore .. they now dwell in Medina and Mercer Island. The U district, ionce a real neighborhood, is now mainly occupied by the UW’s back yard. The Central District has changed dramatically and we have grown a new hisepanic community.
While are we no longer the same folks as lived here thirty of forty tears ago, there is no evidence that the City Council reflects that change.
@9 Tom Foss:
I like your points and explanations. Seattle should have at least a hybrid form of local districts and city-wide elections.
Local representation allows for local campaigning (and doorbelling) and negates some of the money advantages.
The most dubious claim I’ve heard from district proponents is that it would help take the influence of money out of the election equation.
OTOH, elections in smaller geographical areas give more leverage to mobilize an effective grassroots volunteer campaign with less money; with TV ads, you have to pay for the whole market, not just one section of town. Same is true for newspaper ads. It would be akin to Chris Gregoire running ads on national networks to run for a state office. People are more likely to volunteer for a more localized effort–the current participation in so many neighborhood councils is a good indicator. These meetings would become more relevant during the election year of their district.
Coupled with public financing, it would be even more preferable.
I like the idea, the downtown-centric “leadership” is just too much. And on the same day the Times gets its tax break it authors an opinion about keeping the government like it is.
Not that this could happen, but, I think more along the lines of Reps and Senators. Have 5 Reps (locals) and 4 city-wide (long view senator-ish).
Have the longest serviing councilmenbers be the city-wide folks, and a vacated seatis filled by one of the “local” 5. That way a community will have to have some turnover. It is the entrenched people that keep things the way they are, good or bad, because that is what gets them re-elected.