Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Eureka Voting: Ward or At Large

Thanks for the tip on how to zoom in my browser on the Lost Coast Outpost web site, except it didn't quite work. It did get me to think outside the box and try a different browser, though, and I got the site up fine using Google Chrome. Nice, since I got to read Matt Owen's Matt In The Middle column which I always enjoy. Today Matt looks at both sides of the debate of Ward vs At Large voting, a subject that seems to always be brought up by those from The Left. At least the last two times this being brought up by councilgal Linda Atkins, if memory serves me correct. I've gotten the impression lefties like to push ward voting because they like to divide people into groups but, whatever. I don't see any problem with the way we vote in Eureka now. As I always say, if it works, don't try and fix it.

11 Comments:

At 10:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a simple issue. I live in McKinleyville, but am supposedly (officially) represented by 5 county supervisors. The only supervisor who demonstrates with his votes that he cares about McKinleyville is the supervisor elected by McKinleyville residents.

If my supervisor was elected by all voters in Humboldt County, McKinleyville would be an even bigger cesspool than it already is. There would be no true local representation.

I pity Eureka for its ass-backward ward system where the rest of Eureka gets to decide who your local neighborhood representative is.

 
At 10:21 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

At the same time, those same councilfolk decide what goes on in the rest of Eureka.

 
At 10:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and the representation issue goes far beyond how votes are cast. My county supervisor, the one answerable to voters in his district (aka ward), is hyper-responsive to citizen complaints and inquiries. I wouldn't get jack from the other supervisors because they answer to other voters.

When an issue important to you in your neighborhood comes up, you'd better hope it's a simple non-controversial issue, otherwise you'll have a hard time getting the time of day from a group of politicians who are more worried about what the rest of Eureka thinks about your little problem than what voters in your neighborhood think. In a true representative democracy you have at least one elected rep on your side.

 
At 10:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do you want a council member who represents you? If so, have only people from your ward be able to vote for your ward's rep.

If you do NOT want a council member specifically representing your ward, then do away with the ward system entirely and just elect all council members regardless of where they live in the city.

The whole council decides what happens in Eureka, but if your council member is worried about what the rest of Eureka thinks about an issue affecting your own neighborhood, he will be a lot less concerned about what YOU think, because he has to be worried abou what the rest of Eureka thinks. That's not local representation.

 
At 11:03 AM, Blogger Julie Timmons said...

It's NOT working, hasn't worked for years. Can't vote i Eureka due to gerrymandering but I would definitely support a ward system.

 
At 1:11 PM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

In an at large system, the problem is "concentrated power" such that there will be no real debates on funding projects because the concentrated power may focus all in one place as opposed to evenly distributed to the districts/ward.

People then decide which ward to live in based upon how well the ward is maintained, and if it sucks because the elected official sucks, then another candidate can run.

An all in one allows money to buy elections so that money pools its decision usually for etiquette style politics nacked by police state power.

A true ward system versus all in one for representative government.

The unopposed scenario is a concern, but only if because the incumbent is so bad and voters dont give a rats ass to run someone else in opposition.

The final analyses for HOJ is: whichever system is a smaller form of gubbamint.

 
At 1:12 PM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

In an at large system, the problem is "concentrated power" such that there will be no real debates on funding projects because the concentrated power may focus all in one place as opposed to evenly distributed to the districts/ward.

People then decide which ward to live in based upon how well the ward is maintained, and if it sucks because the elected official sucks, then another candidate can run.

An all in one allows money to buy elections so that money pools its decision usually for etiquette style politics nacked by police state power.

A true ward system versus all in one for representative government.

The unopposed scenario is a concern, but only if because the incumbent is so bad and voters dont give a rats ass to run someone else in opposition.

The final analyses for HOJ is: whichever system is a smaller form of gubbamint.

 
At 9:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Money buys elections? Oh Henchman, the conservative view is that companies are people and company donations are free speech. You're impinging on the God-given Constitutionally protected rights of our fellow corporations.

 
At 11:06 PM, Blogger Sally Sheffield said...

Thanks, Fred, that was a very interesting article. If I understood it correctly I would say Eureka should give itself a pat on the back for using the hybrid form of election for councilmen. This gives each ward representation, while retaining at large voting choices. As Matt Owen mentioned it's the best of both methods. There is no perfect system. It will only be as perfect as the(elected and non-elected) people involved.

 
At 9:43 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Shit,

Lots of liberals, independents, greens, black lives matters, progressives, loonies, etc....all represent the rainbow of corporate personhood bullshitters.

To say a corporation has the same rights as a person is one of the biggest frauds of American History secured through the enslavements of the American laborer that net profits for the bullshit whipping boys who fondle the puppet masters.....

Take Chris Christie for example....a fat ass bullshitter fondling Trump for power and control....yes, the elites like corporate personhood because it sways elections and the transfer of wealth off of forced economics.

Like the county supes, forced economics......a methodology whereby theft of wealth through taxation strategies is meant to go into your enemies pocket through a scheme called job creation based on a taxation model of robbing Peter to pay off Paul.

If jobs cant be created naturally as part of the free market system, then taxing to create jobs suggests not enough jobs can be created because the demand is not there. Just another example of government forcefully taking responsibility for an individual's life even though individuals are not really asking for help by forcing taxations in exchange for unsustainable jobs that were artificially created without a backbone for longterm success and viability.

 
At 9:44 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Shit,

Lots of liberals, independents, greens, black lives matters, progressives, loonies, etc....all represent the rainbow of corporate personhood bullshitters.

To say a corporation has the same rights as a person is one of the biggest frauds of American History secured through the enslavements of the American laborer that net profits for the bullshit whipping boys who fondle the puppet masters.....

Take Chris Christie for example....a fat ass bullshitter fondling Trump for power and control....yes, the elites like corporate personhood because it sways elections and the transfer of wealth off of forced economics.

Like the county supes, forced economics......a methodology whereby theft of wealth through taxation strategies is meant to go into your enemies pocket through a scheme called job creation based on a taxation model of robbing Peter to pay off Paul.

If jobs cant be created naturally as part of the free market system, then taxing to create jobs suggests not enough jobs can be created because the demand is not there. Just another example of government forcefully taking responsibility for an individual's life even though individuals are not really asking for help by forcing taxations in exchange for unsustainable jobs that were artificially created without a backbone for longterm success and viability.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home