Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all there isn’t a history of using at large districts to deny representation. Second, the current system has both at large and districts— no idea what you mean by “so much of the council’s power” except trolling.

How can you say there isn't a history of using at-large seats to deny representation? It certainly limits the ability of some groups to get representation on the board.

And by power, I mean it heavily skews the board in favor of the majority, far beyond what is proportional in the electorate. Nearly half of the board is at-large seats- they only need one district councilmember to go along with them.

As a factual matter there is not a history of using the at large seats to deny representation to racial or minority groups. I have no idea why you think there is or if it’s even true that it’s harder for some groups to get representation. If, say, dumb people all wanted to vote for the same candidate it would probably be easier for that candidate to get elected at large than from a single district unless all the dumb people live in a single district.

Likewise it just makes no sense to say that splitting the council between at large and districts skews the board beyond what is proportional.

Of course it does.

Consider an overly-simplified scenario (with made up numbers) assuming two voting blocks within MoCo: an urban voting block composed of 60% of the population, and a suburban voting block of 40%.

Under a proportionally-distributed model with 9 districts, you'd expect 5 urban councilmembers, and 4 suburban councilmembers.

Under council's existing model of 5 districts and 4 at-large seats, you'd expect all at-large seats to be filled by urban councilmembers. And you'd expect 3 of the districts to vote urban, and 2 to vote suburban.

So it's the difference between a 5-4 makeup under proportional representation, and a 7-2 makeup when you make 4 of the seats at-large. Wildly disproportionate.

I think a mix is best— sometimes your local district person just isn’t responsive to you. Maybe they are more or less conservative than you, maybe they priorize different issues (the environment vs biotech) or maybe they aren’t big on emailing with constituents.

I’ve run into all those situations before and it’s really great to be able to go to someone else on the council who does care about those issues.

Having more than just one person who represents you is much more likely to give you good representation.

Anonymous wrote:Yes to D and No to C!!!!!!

That will be my vote too. For me it’s not a D or R issue but one of fair representation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all there isn’t a history of using at large districts to deny representation. Second, the current system has both at large and districts— no idea what you mean by “so much of the council’s power” except trolling.

How can you say there isn't a history of using at-large seats to deny representation? It certainly limits the ability of some groups to get representation on the board.

And by power, I mean it heavily skews the board in favor of the majority, far beyond what is proportional in the electorate. Nearly half of the board is at-large seats- they only need one district councilmember to go along with them.

As a factual matter there is not a history of using the at large seats to deny representation to racial or minority groups. I have no idea why you think there is or if it’s even true that it’s harder for some groups to get representation. If, say, dumb people all wanted to vote for the same candidate it would probably be easier for that candidate to get elected at large than from a single district unless all the dumb people live in a single district.

Likewise it just makes no sense to say that splitting the council between at large and districts skews the board beyond what is proportional.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. For what it's worth, I actually kind of like the idea of at-large seats. But I think composing the board of 45% at-large seats greatly distorts the distribution of power in the county. Question C is only marginally better. A better compromise than Question C would have been 9 districts and two at-large seats, but I suspect the current council wanted to keep the existing balance of power (which C mostly maintains).

If both pass, neither passes. That’s why the Council put C on there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea is that every resident is represented by the majority of the Council. You get five votes, not just one. You have five out of nine people to address your concerns - not just one out of nine.

Then why don't we elect Congressmen that way, if more votes are always better?

Because it is discriminatory and would be clearly illegal if it was done on racial grounds rather than urban/suburban/rural grounds. It distorts the power of the majority beyond proportionality.

NAACPLDF At-large Voting Frequently Asked Questions
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/At-Large-Voting-Frequently-Asked-Questions-1.pdf

Except, most voters in MoCo are people of color....

OP here. For what it's worth, I actually kind of like the idea of at-large seats. But I think composing the board of 45% at-large seats greatly distorts the distribution of power in the county. Question C is only marginally better. A better compromise than Question C would have been 9 districts and two at-large seats, but I suspect the current council wanted to keep the existing balance of power (which C mostly maintains).

Yes to D and No to C!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:The idea is that every resident is represented by the majority of the Council. You get five votes, not just one. You have five out of nine people to address your concerns - not just one out of nine.

That's a straw man argument to maintain the status quo which fits the council's interests. The four at-large members attentions are diluted. There's going to be a lot of finger pointing on who takes up an issue. One person who represents 100k is going to be more responsive than one person who represents 1 million. If everyone's in charge, no one's in charge. If that councilmember actually lives in your district he/she would have a better handle on the issue you're trying to articulate.

Anonymous wrote:The idea is that every resident is represented by the majority of the Council. You get five votes, not just one. You have five out of nine people to address your concerns - not just one out of nine.

Then why don't we elect Congressmen that way, if more votes are always better?

Because it is discriminatory and would be clearly illegal if it was done on racial grounds rather than urban/suburban/rural grounds. It distorts the power of the majority beyond proportionality.

NAACPLDF At-large Voting Frequently Asked Questions
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/At-Large-Voting-Frequently-Asked-Questions-1.pdf

Anonymous wrote:First of all there isn’t a history of using at large districts to deny representation. Second, the current system has both at large and districts— no idea what you mean by “so much of the council’s power” except trolling.

How can you say there isn't a history of using at-large seats to deny representation? It certainly limits the ability of some groups to get representation on the board.

And by power, I mean it heavily skews the board in favor of the majority, far beyond what is proportional in the electorate. Nearly half of the board is at-large seats- they only need one district councilmember to go along with them.

The idea is that every resident is represented by the majority of the Council. You get five votes, not just one. You have five out of nine people to address your concerns - not just one out of nine.

First of all there isn’t a history of using at large districts to deny representation. Second, the current system has both at large and districts— no idea what you mean by “so much of the council’s power” except trolling.

Isn't there a ballot measure to convert the at-large seats to district seats and as a result have nine districts? Let's vote no for the council's proposal (add two more seats - more bloat) and yes for nine districts for Moco.

How do Democratic/progressive groups in MoCo justify putting so much of the council's power in at-large seats when the use of at-large seats is generally considered discriminatory in other contexts? If this was done in the deep south it would probably be viewed as vote dilution in violation of the Voting Rights Act.