 FRONT PAGE Archive Index Feedback |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
| |||||
City Council candidates on district elections
Sep 13, 2001 -- Seattle Press: Where do you stand on City Council elections by district, rather than at large?Position 2
(incumbent, Richard Conlin)Dakotta JK Alex: I support district elections. Talking to other cities, which have this feel, it is more successful for representation for the community.
James Egan: I believe Jay Sauceda has raised a valid point in his position to change the election system so that there can be district elections. As the city grows, naturally there are greater numbers of people that are more densely packed, and local issues (such as traffic, homelessness or crime) need to be elevated to the forefront of the City government. This might best be done by District elections, which in effect ensure that each neighborhood has (at least) one spokesperson. A system of seven districts, with two general positions that may be sought by any candidate, allows for the electability of someone less politically popular in the region.
Although I have certainly given this thought and agree that there is a point in time and population density in which District Elections are politically better than General Elections, this issue requires some thought and I am not entirely sure. I continue to be inclined towards it, especially if it phased in over terms. I would want to see broad community support for the idea before supporting it. That community support may be shown by the results of the September 18 primary.
Michael Preston: I favor City Council elections by district provided that they are conducted as the School Board elections are held, that is, nominate candidates by district in the primary [election] and elect the Council city-wide in the general election.
Position 4
(incumbent, Jan Drago)Jan Drago:. Seattle has elected Councilmembers at large for many decades. I think it has served the citizens well and has resulted in a historically well-managed City. Councilmembers elected at large must have a broad comprehensive view on issues and projects. They must weigh and balance many factors before making decisions.
Curt Firestone: Seattle needs election reform and our neighborhoods need improved City Council representation. The current voting system inhibits voters from choosing City Council members who represent their neighborhood or issues. The City Council should appoint a citizen election reform task force which would propose improvements to the current system. Those improvements may include districting, a mix of districts and at-large positions, instant run-off voting and/or campaign finance reform.
Residents want to be able to relate to their Seattle government. I plan to hire a full time Constituent Advocate to help residents deal with city issues. The advocate will be based in the neighborhoods, not in City Hall. I plan to pay for the Constituent Advocate out of my city council salary at no additional city expense.
Susan Harmon: Most citizens do not realize that it takes more votes to win a city council seat than it does to become a state rep or state senator. An incumbent recently told me that though originally supporting districting, that person now feels city-wide is a good way to elect our city council. I'm certain that now having city-wide name recognition has had an impact on that shift in position. I like Jay Saucedo's plan to have nine seats, seven by district and two at-large. It addresses the fear that persons elected by district will only look to the issues in the district they represent, and at the same time gives a voice to issues that may only impact some areas of the city. In my visits to neighborhood councils in areas other than West Seattle, where I live, I have found that many issues are the same. For instance, issues about Metro are pretty similar throughout the city (east-west routes and timing to make connections).
Position 8
(incumbent, Richard McIver)Grant Cogswell: I feel districts would allow a more democratic spirit to determine the results of council races. Right now the money, and the advantages of incumbency are huge (I know, I'm facing them) in an area with the population of a congressional district. Districting would allow for face-to-face campaigning and give small, grassroots campaigns a better chance. As things are now, with the cost of running a viable campaign set so high, the odds are stacked against challengers and almost nobody will take on an incumbent.
Stan Lippmann: There should be both district and at-large seats. A balance is required between giving each area of the city a voice and not limiting good candidates from winning office because they happen to live in a politically rotten borough.
Richard McIver: I believe Seattle’s citizens are pretty well served by the current non-partisan at-large election of Council members. The incessant squabbling of the County Council would seem to suggest that district elections lead some elected officials to focus too narrowly, rather than on the solutions best for the entire community.
The current nine incumbents seem to provide a pretty good cross section of the political views of Seattle’s citizens. All nine are progressive on social issues, while presenting a variety of opinions on how to best address our challenges.
Heath Merriwether: I see advantages and disadvantages of both systems. Candidate for [City Council] Position 2 Michael Preston has purposed a School Board style of election, in which candidates would be voted on by districts in the primary and the top two would be voted city wide in the general from each district. I think this is the best system assuring neighborhood representation and keeping the citywide accountability.
Jerome Wilson: City council should be determined by district, not at-large, elections.
This is one reform that would certainly alter the "downtown uber alles" predilections of recent City Councils. At-large elections favor incumbents who trade favors for campaign contributions. District elections favor neighborhoods.
Reader Comments
Discuss this article in the forums!
No comments yet!