I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Roberts court gutted the VRA so it's ok now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does Erlich and the current council want?

I'll vote for whatever is opposite of what those clowns want.

Well, consider the length that the council has gone to in order to try to prevent Question D from passing, you can guess how they feel about it. They even had to suspend their normal procedural rules so that they could get their competing question (Question C) on the ballot in time, after it became clear that Question D was going to get enough petition signatures to make it on the ballot.

So C = NO, D = YES

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that's why majority groups like at-large seats: it dilutes the voice of minority opinions even further, whether those racial minority or ideologically minority opinions.

But this is only true if the minority opinions are concentrated geographically, and it’s not clear that’s really true in MoCo.

Having lived both down and upcounty, I feel comfortable saying there's a significant split. Certainly neither area acts as a homogeneous voting block, but the general difference is stark.

I say this as a (new) upcounty resident whose political ideology probably mostly aligns with Riemer. I just think the at-large system in MoCo is right up there with gerrymandering as a dirty political tactic to marginalize voters.

Anonymous wrote:What does Erlich and the current council want?

I'll vote for whatever is opposite of what those clowns want.

Well, consider the length that the council has gone to in order to try to prevent Question D from passing, you can guess how they feel about it. They even had to suspend their normal procedural rules so that they could get their competing question (Question C) on the ballot in time, after it became clear that Question D was going to get enough petition signatures to make it on the ballot.

What does Erlich and the current council want?

I'll vote for whatever is opposite of what those clowns want.

Anonymous wrote:And that's why majority groups like at-large seats: it dilutes the voice of minority opinions even further, whether those racial minority or ideologically minority opinions.

But this is only true if the minority opinions are concentrated geographically, and it’s not clear that’s really true in MoCo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the widening of 270 for example - it was supposed to also include 495 but there is so much power in Silver Spring and TP that they aren’t widening that and are only widening 270 in Rockville where the road is already widest!

I’m not necessarily opposed to widening but what has happened is BS. The split needs more lanes, it’s a huge bottleneck and so does 270 North of the ICC. They’re literally widening it at the only spot that can’t benefit from additional lanes. Now this is a state government thing but the county council is why it’s happening this way.

Yep. That's because all the at-large members live in TP/SS.

I would think Question D would make things worse on this front. Downcounty is much more dense than upcounty. The majority of the Councilmembers will represent downcounty, and will band together to fight for their interests. Sure it'll be great to have more representation from upcounty but they'll still be in the minority, and the rest of the Council will have that much more of an incentive to ignore their needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the widening of 270 for example - it was supposed to also include 495 but there is so much power in Silver Spring and TP that they aren’t widening that and are only widening 270 in Rockville where the road is already widest!

I’m not necessarily opposed to widening but what has happened is BS. The split needs more lanes, it’s a huge bottleneck and so does 270 North of the ICC. They’re literally widening it at the only spot that can’t benefit from additional lanes. Now this is a state government thing but the county council is why it’s happening this way.

Yep. That's because all the at-large members live in TP/SS.

Technically Albornoz lives in Kensington, but since 495 runs straight through Kensington, he's opposed too. The other three live in SS though.

Anonymous wrote:Look at the widening of 270 for example - it was supposed to also include 495 but there is so much power in Silver Spring and TP that they aren’t widening that and are only widening 270 in Rockville where the road is already widest!

I’m not necessarily opposed to widening but what has happened is BS. The split needs more lanes, it’s a huge bottleneck and so does 270 North of the ICC. They’re literally widening it at the only spot that can’t benefit from additional lanes. Now this is a state government thing but the county council is why it’s happening this way.

Yep. That's because all the at-large members live in TP/SS.

Look at the widening of 270 for example - it was supposed to also include 495 but there is so much power in Silver Spring and TP that they aren’t widening that and are only widening 270 in Rockville where the road is already widest!

I’m not necessarily opposed to widening but what has happened is BS. The split needs more lanes, it’s a huge bottleneck and so does 270 North of the ICC. They’re literally widening it at the only spot that can’t benefit from additional lanes. Now this is a state government thing but the county council is why it’s happening this way.

Anonymous wrote:I voted no on both.

C would be so expensive.

D means no Councilmember is looking at what is good for the county as a whole. All focused on their own districts and fighting over infrastructure projects.

I wish they would have just proposed to add two districts and take away two at large seats (leaving 7 districts and two at large)

I believe focusing on the district is a better alternative than what we have right now, which is focusing on getting re-elected. That's why they didn't keep members at 9 and convert two at-large to districts - because it means two councilmembers will be unemployed. Don't get me wrong, if each district has a rep, that rep will focus on getting re-elected as well, but at least they have to listen to their constituents in each district to do so, and will bring more diverse concerns and views to the council. If you have four at-large members and 3/4 of them live in Silver Spring, then Silver Spring issues dominate the council.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's going to greatly depend on where you fall ideologically and what your values/priorities are. It certainly isn't true for upcounty conservatives, who are not likely to exert meaningful influence over at-large seats but might have influence over a district seat.

And that's why majority groups like at-large seats: it dilutes the voice of minority opinions even further, whether those racial minority or ideologically minority opinions.

I voted no on both.

C would be so expensive.

D means no Councilmember is looking at what is good for the county as a whole. All focused on their own districts and fighting over infrastructure projects.

I wish they would have just proposed to add two districts and take away two at large seats (leaving 7 districts and two at large)