Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the county website and other articles, Glass, Jawando, and Riemer all live in Silver Spring. Albornoz lives in Kensington. At large seats result in a ton of Silver Spring representation on the council. One part of the county is being disproportionately overrepresented. The whole "four at-large candidates result in you having five reps" is a straw man argument intended to preserve the at-large members' jobs. C = No. D = Yes.

Agree. The only people that get five reps are those living down county.

That's exactly how it plays out.

Wow, so when people from upcounty call the at-large reps about an upcounty issue they're like "tough luck, I don't care about you, haha!"?

Yes, that's pretty much how it goes.

Anonymous wrote:You forgot about the misogynist Reimer. Have you seen the way he is dismissive to any woman speaking? Disgusting!

But the poster above who said anything The Parent Coalition or Ficker is for, is something most should be against because they are a bunch of crazies, is correct. I am for C, against D.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery county is so large that I do think each region should have its own representative. Most of the current counsel lives in Takoma Park and I feel that although they have good intentions, they don’t truly understand or able to advocate for what is best for my area. The needs of my area are the same as the needs for the close in suburbs and that’s just a fact. Politically I don’t understand what the repercussions would be for having nine districts.

Sounds like you should support the ballot measure increasing the number of district seats from 5 to 7, and the total size of the county council from 9 to 11. So 7 district councilmembers and 4 at-large councilmembers.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/government/if-both-ballot-measures-on-county-council-structure-pass-the-effect-might-be-no-change/

Currently, two of the five council districts have useless council members who not advocate for the residents in their district. (If you're involved with county politics, you know whom I'm talking about.) If you got rid of the at-large council members, and your district council member were useless or took a position opposite from yours, then what would you do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the county website and other articles, Glass, Jawando, and Riemer all live in Silver Spring. Albornoz lives in Kensington. At large seats result in a ton of Silver Spring representation on the council. One part of the county is being disproportionately overrepresented. The whole "four at-large candidates result in you having five reps" is a straw man argument intended to preserve the at-large members' jobs. C = No. D = Yes.

Agree. The only people that get five reps are those living down county.

That's exactly how it plays out.

Wow, so when people from upcounty call the at-large reps about an upcounty issue they're like "tough luck, I don't care about you, haha!"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the county website and other articles, Glass, Jawando, and Riemer all live in Silver Spring. Albornoz lives in Kensington. At large seats result in a ton of Silver Spring representation on the council. One part of the county is being disproportionately overrepresented. The whole "four at-large candidates result in you having five reps" is a straw man argument intended to preserve the at-large members' jobs. C = No. D = Yes.

Agree. The only people that get five reps are those living down county.

That's exactly how it plays out.

Wow, so when people from upcounty call the at-large reps about an upcounty issue they're like "tough luck, I don't care about you, haha!"?

Yes, that's pretty much how it goes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the county website and other articles, Glass, Jawando, and Riemer all live in Silver Spring. Albornoz lives in Kensington. At large seats result in a ton of Silver Spring representation on the council. One part of the county is being disproportionately overrepresented. The whole "four at-large candidates result in you having five reps" is a straw man argument intended to preserve the at-large members' jobs. C = No. D = Yes.

Agree. The only people that get five reps are those living down county.

That's exactly how it plays out.

Wow, so when people from upcounty call the at-large reps about an upcounty issue they're like "tough luck, I don't care about you, haha!"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the county website and other articles, Glass, Jawando, and Riemer all live in Silver Spring. Albornoz lives in Kensington. At large seats result in a ton of Silver Spring representation on the council. One part of the county is being disproportionately overrepresented. The whole "four at-large candidates result in you having five reps" is a straw man argument intended to preserve the at-large members' jobs. C = No. D = Yes.

Agree. The only people that get five reps are those living down county.

That's exactly how it plays out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the county website and other articles, Glass, Jawando, and Riemer all live in Silver Spring. Albornoz lives in Kensington. At large seats result in a ton of Silver Spring representation on the council. One part of the county is being disproportionately overrepresented. The whole "four at-large candidates result in you having five reps" is a straw man argument intended to preserve the at-large members' jobs. C = No. D = Yes.

Agree. The only people that get five reps are those living down county.

Anonymous wrote:According to the county website and other articles, Glass, Jawando, and Riemer all live in Silver Spring. Albornoz lives in Kensington. At large seats result in a ton of Silver Spring representation on the council. One part of the county is being disproportionately overrepresented. The whole "four at-large candidates result in you having five reps" is a straw man argument intended to preserve the at-large members' jobs. C = No. D = Yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get why the downcounty Democrats are so afraid of giving the upcounty people a couple more seats. They'll still have a solid majority on the council, and the upcounty districts will generally vote Democrat anyway.

Leggett's example is absurd. Is there a more rational explanation that I'm not seeing besides being afraid of proportional representation for upcounty interests?

It won't get Republicans elected, if that's what people are hoping for (or fear). It will likely get some more moderate Democrats elected.

Agreed. That seems the most likely outcome. Are the downcounty Democrats really that afraid of moderate Democrats? I don't understand why so many of them view this as an existential threat.

Navarro is done - term limited. So her district is open. I think Hucker wants to run for higher office. So his might be available as well, next go round.

I don't know where Will Jawando, Evan Glass, and Gabe Albornoz live. They are the ones with the most to lose. So that leaves those three to fight out district changes that may pit them against one another, depending on where they live.

I will be sad if Albornoz is squeezed out somehow. Neutral on the other two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Parent Coalition is for this ridiculous plan. Anyone with half a brain knows that is enough of a reason to be against it (just like anything Ficker is for).

The County Council is against it. They are so against it, they added their own ballot initiative (Question C) to counteract it. Instead of just letting the question stand on its own and allowing voters to decide, they added their own question to confuse people.

Therefore, I'm in favor of it. If the Council is opposing this so much, then I'll vote for it.