filed under Daily Dose
TONIGHT: Hearing on at-large Council
7:22AM ON
07/21/2008
BY
Dave Segal
Matt has a detailed post about this at RIFuture.
The basics, I think, are pretty simple: A 10-5 or 12-3 plan would mean larger wards, and mean some candidates would have to run city-wide. That would abstract governance further from the people, and increase the amount of money needed to run for office.
The notion that the straight-up at large seats would somehow help members of various minority constituencies win office is transparently flawed. In some individual wards, such constituencies achieve a majority or plurality. Larger wards and at-large elections would simply dilute this power.
Am I asserting that no person votes for somebody of a race other than their own? OF COURSE NOT. Am I asserting that no person of color could raise the boatload of money needed to win an at-large seat? OF COURSE NOT. But, for better or worse, people do tend to vote for people who look like themselves. And, sadly, non-whites tend to be much poorer than whites. These become two huge obstacles towards minorities’ attaining power under an at-large system.
(There certainly are particular people of color could raise a hell of a lot of money. But the system would still be skewed even further in favor of wealth than it already is.)
However, a proportional at-large system, like the one that’s being promoted by the NAACP in Cincinnati, would basically guarantee that minorities — racial, ethnic, and even ideological — would be represented in a way that’s close to commensurate with their presence in the voting population. And it would allow people to run for said seats without spending as much money as under the proposed system: Under PR, you can win a seat while focusing your efforts on a small slice of the total voting population, culled based on socioeconomics, ideology, or anything else that creates solidarity among human beings.
Please head to City Hall TONIGHT AT 6 to express concerns about the proposal.
July 21st, 2008 at 9:18AM
Tabetha Bernstein-Danis Says:
“…would basically guarantee that minorities — racial, ethnic, and even ideological — would be represented in a way that’s close to commensurate with their presence in the voting population. ”
Does this mean that more independents and people from smaller, political parties may have a shot at public office? That would be nice, because right now it seems that virtually anyone who does not align him/herself with either the Republican or Democratic party has no shot. (Note to self: future as first Latina-Jewish-female-Independent president perhaps still a possibility…)
[Reply]
July 21st, 2008 at 11:08AM
P. Says:
really it is up to the citizens of providence to vote(!) on who they want to be their representative. if the black, hispanic, or asian community wants to elect a member of their specific ethnic group then why don’t they do so? outside of the east side the vast, vast majority of the city is non-white, so why is it a problem for minorities to get elected? maybe they are not offering good candidates? or maybe it is because of the assumed wealth of white candidates over non-white candidates?
i don’t have much sympathy for political affirmative action. seemingly all this breaks down to is racial politics why even entertain the idea of deciding policy down racial lines? if all the city council was at large then perhaps some parochialism would end and finally bring a section of rhode island into the 21st century.
if more people vote on the east side then the south side, west end, or north end then it is not the fault of east siders who actively participate in democracy it is the fault of those who do not vote…for they are declining to play a role in changing this city for the better.
Rep Segal do you know where i could get numbers on the turnout for city council elections?
perhaps a program to educate voters citywide should be launched to go hand in hand with this city council proposal.
sorry for the rant.
[Reply]
July 21st, 2008 at 2:53PM
Matthew Lawrence Says:
I think the problem is more with districting lines, P. Breaking up wards in the middle of neighborhoods so certain communities don’t have as much power is something that’s been going on for at least 200 years now . And there are a number of minorities on the city council now. While a third of the council is made up of middle-aged white men with unfortunate moustaches, you can’t forget that Miguel Luna, Luis Aponte, and Leon Tejada are all on the council, as is Balbina Young, who has served on the council since before you were born, probably.
Which is not to say that there aren’t a couple of wards who aren’t well-represented in the council right now. There are. But I’d have to agree that making bigger districts isn’t the way to solve that.
[Reply]
July 21st, 2008 at 3:57PM
Ari Says:
I find the arguments against at large council seats to be inherently cynical. Why are we so worried by the potential for the entire municipal entity to actually elect 3 people? To me, this a) reeks of entrenched interests trying to protect their own, and b) currently elected officials who want you to believe that they know what’s best. Why not bring this to the will of the people, via a vote??
No one is suggesting that we dismantle the entire council and eviscerate local representation. At large seats would simply bring more diversity (of people, opinion, experience, etc.) to the council. Providence tends to be extremely parochial as it is, why wouldn’t anyone be in favor of broadening at least a few of our representative’s civic viewpoint?
So at the end of the day, why not let the people decide? Why not try this out and if the results are truly as draconian as the detractors claim (racial warfare, etc.) we can go back to our cozy, myopic system of today.
[Reply]
October 19th, 2008 at 11:30PM
Bookmarks about Wealth Says:
[...] - bookmarked by 2 members originally found by boofydb on 2008-09-28 TONIGHT: Hearing on at-large Council http://providencedailydose.com/2008/07/21/tonight-hearing-on-at-large-council/ - bookmarked by 1 [...]