WHAT SHOULD I BE DOING INSTEAD OF THIS?
 
October 29th, 2008 By | News | Posted In: 2008 Election, Public Policy, News

City Council, Others Sound Off About Issue 8

1 Comment
     
Tags:
This week’s issue of CityBeat features an article examining Issue 8, which proposes reviving the electoral system known as proportional representation (PR) for choosing members of Cincinnati City Council.

As is typical with most articles, time and space limitations prevented some material from being included in the print edition. Among such material this time includes City Councilman Jeff Berding, a leading PR opponent, elaborating on his reasons against the proposed switch; and City Councilman Chris Bortz, explaining why he opposes Issue 8 even though his political party — the Charter Committee — supports the change.

Berding believes the current system is preferable to PR, which he says would divide the city among ideological groups.

“We believe that the current system requires that candidates to campaign all over the city, to listen to voters and if elected, to work to represent the entire city,” Berding says. “Since you need 35 percent to 40 percent of the vote to win, there is a systemic requirement that we make a concerted effort to balance your personal views and own neighborhood interests with what is best for the entire city and what is needed in other parts of the city. We are encouraged to respond to all constituent requests for service. Under Issue 8, candidates only need 10 percent plus 1 vote, and thus can get elected with a very narrow view and small level of support not found in any (U.S.) democracy but Cambridge, Mass.”

He adds, “This proportional representation system will take Cincinnati back to the days of chaos at City Hall, because by allowing for the election of candidates with a small, but passionate base of support who would reward extreme ideological positions rather than collaboration and compromise. This system encourages council in-fighting and negative campaigns in order to be ranked No. 1 by some voters … the reform we need is to bring more representation to those neighborhoods who feel progress in the city is eluding them, which would be addressed by adding some measure of council districts. Districts recognize that where we live unites us as neighbors. Proportional representation divides us based on our political ideology. We should aspire for systems that are more uniting of the city, and avoid those like PR that divide us instead.”

Meanwhile, Bortz says the intricacies of returning to PR haven’t been sufficiently vetted.

“First and foremost, there has been no process to be inclusive and educate people on this new system,” Bortz says. “Charter amendments should never be taken lightly, nor should ballot initiatives. A change of this kind should be discussed, debated, and deliberated over in a public forum.

“For example, the director of the Board of Elections testified in front of council that it would likely cost millions, may be physically impossible to develop software in a timely manner, and manual counting could potentially be prohibited, per the Secretary of State, due to the Help America Vote Act of 2002,” Bortz adds.

Further, PR might lead to problems with tabulating ballots.

“Under the single transferable vote, there truly is the statistical probability that some votes would not be counted, depending on the order in which they are counted,” he says. “I can’t even begin to imagine a software system that could assign, and reassign, the votes without great risk of susceptibility to programming ‘flaws.’”

In fact, the only Cincinnati City Council member to publicly support switching to PR is Roxanne Qualls, Bortz’s fellow Charterite. But even Qualls’ support has been less than stellar.

Asked about her views on PR, Qualls replied with a one-sentence written statement that read, “I have always supported and campaigned in the past for Proportional Representation, and do not oppose Issue 8.”

PR supporters counter that it isn’t surprising people who benefit from the status quo oppose the change.

“There’s absolutely a level of self-interest involved,” says Amy Ngai, a consultant with the Better Ballot Cincinnati campaign. “It makes a lot of sense for a current, sitting council member not to want to change the system.”

Bills Woods, chair of Common Cause Ohio, says many good government and political reform groups support the change.

“We think it will be a boost to democracy in terms of leading to less expensive elections and it will get people who are more issue-oriented to run,” Woods says.

Responding to concerns that PR could lead to special interest candidates who would balkanize city council, Woods replied, “Running on a single issue usually wouldn’t build enough support to get elected. You usually need to run in cooperation with other candidates.”

Still, Woods acknowledges that converting to PR is the beginning of needed reforms, not the end.

“We don’t think PR is a silver bullet,” he says. “There need to be a variety of reforms to our electoral system.”
 
 
10.31.2008 at 07:26 Reply
Cincinnati PR far from being ideological and divisive is the only truly unitive voting system. That is because you prefer individual candidates in order of choice. You can prefer any good person of any party or group or back-ground. The transferable vote in order of choice is also an incentive for candidates to make their appeal as broadly based as possible. Moreover, the candidates whose support is much greater than ten per cent will have greater authority from having many more first preferences than other candidates. X-votes are not necessarily first preferences but may be strategic votes for one party bloc to stop the party they least like. Thus X-votes oblige candidates to put party first, so that they will be closely identified with the party and benefit from the 9X system's party bloc vote effect. Then there are opponents' scare tactics pretending it is too costly and complex for the voters. These are transparently excuses that least of all have the voters in mind. Cincinnati PR essentially has been used in elections for over a hundred years. It has been computerised since the early days of computers. It is perhaps the most intensively studied and practised electoral system in the world, with many variations in detail to achieve much the same end of freedom of choice in the vote and equality of representation in the count. That is genuine democracy. Whereas party list systems, for instance, cover a multitude of (unrepresentative) sins.

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close