- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Goode pushing new City Council At-Large reform
Submitted by Councilman Goode on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 4:38am.
City Councilman At-Large W. Wilson Goode, Jr. has a new proposal – he will not introduce the charter change resolution and companion bill that would reduce the number of Councilmembers from 17 to 15, and the number of at-large Councilmembers from 7 to 5. Instead, Councilman Goode will introduce legislation next week that will permit each party to nominate six candidates and give each elector the right to vote for six Councilmembers at large. The number of Councilmembers would remain 17, and the number of at-large members would remain 7 – but each party would get another nomination and each voter would get an extra vote.
Forty years ago, in 1968, Democrats accounted for almost 60% of the city electorate with about 600,000 registered – while the Republican Party had less than 400,000 registered, comprising less than 40% of the electorate. In 2008, Democrats account for almost 80% of the city electorate, while Republicans account for only 14 percent of the city electorate but they are still virtually guaranteed 28 percent of City Council At-Large seats. This latest proposal fairly updates the political process toward representative democracy.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Absurd
This bill fairly reflects a parliamentary democracy not a representative democracy. Get your facts straight Councilman. We should be increasing the size of Council and decreasing the size of the Districts. That is reflective of a representative democracy.
Wally Zimolong
Maverick Republican for State Representative
182nd Legislative District
www.wallyzimolong.com
By that logic, what
By that logic, what percentage of Philadelphians are independents?
In real terms, this would mean that Sharif Street would have replaced Jack Kelly in Council, which is not awful, and would have saved us all some embarrassment. But, I don't really see how this helps progressive politics. Assuming that there will usually be at least 1 popular Republican, and that in an at-large election ward leaders still dominate, this bill would virtually eliminate any chance for a third party- like the Working Families Party- to take a seat.
Voters get an extra choice... that's progressive.
Under this proposal, voters get an extra choice.
In your lifetime, and mine, Philadelphia voters have never been able to vote for 7 councilmembers - 1 district and 6 at-large.
Is it likely that those choices will still be heavily influenced by party politics? Yes.
Is it better that those choices be influenced by Democrats rather than Republicans? Yes.
It is also more fair.
The title of the legislation will be broad enough to allow for further input and possible amendment.
But, as it is, giving voters an extra choice is progressive.
I'm pleased with it - but still listening to other thoughts and ideas.
WWGjr
A Better, Fairer Plan
I commend Councilman Goode for coming up with a better, fairer plan. His plan would give the city Republicans a little higher than the 14% or so of party registrations they now have (which should go down a bit after the scheduled purge of former voters who have long since moved after the election), and give them almost as high a percentage of seats (12.2%) as their party registration assuming the Republicans hold onto the 10th District.
Creating a new Democratic at large seat would certainly be appealing to the scores or hundreds of possible at large candidates who have allies among district council members. It would might appeal to at large candidates who would want to balance being part of a flood of new candidates versus the fact that the the rare losses of at large candidates are usually by small margins over the 6th place incumbent.
Republicans would of course oppose this plan, and I would guess the Committee of Seventy might oppose it too. I feel somewhat torn by competing conceptions of fairness, and I look forward to seeing how this debate plays out.
The fairest would be non-partisan across the board
As it is many voters who intuitively go to the right and left of the local DCC are rerouted to register Dem to actually impact district races. At heart this is just one party machine resettling accounts with another party machine - its not empowering voter choice. I happen to most often side with the Dems obviously but far too often lack of competition breeds corruption and incompetance in Philly politics. Any change should be a dramatic step towards competition and away from the often not so progressive side of ward politics.
It's better than the previous proposal but thats not saying all that much.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Changing Neighborhoods
How about the fact that the population and demographics of district have changed drastically since the 1960's? We need more and smaller districts. Smaller districts promote a Council that is more representative of the make up of the City. Smaller districts allow council people to have easier and more frequent contact with their constituents. Smaller districts make campaigning much less dependent on raising large sums of money, thus the barrier to enter for qualified candidates is diminished.
Business Community Is An Obstacle To Smaller Districts
The business community and its acolytes on the editorial pages and in good government groups can be expected to come down hard against any plan to increase the number of districts or to increase the number of council members. They tend to identify almost exclusively with the guy in charge--the mayor--and to look down rather severely on any plan to create more politicians or to divide any area up into more units.
As Councilman Goode pointed out earlier, the entire history of the number of City Council members in Philadelphia has been one of shrinking numbers. Further, each ward used to have its own school board, elected by the voters; all the ward school boards have long since been abolished, and appointive school governing bodies have replaced them.
Philadelphia has also abolished all its former townships and boroughs, each of which had an elective governing structure, and its volunteer fire departments, with elective governing structures and key roles in the poltical process.
Philadelphia has also abolished its elected constables, and converted its old justice of peace system to a magisterial system elected citywide and now to a system of Municipal Courts and Traffic Court Judges elected citywide.
I believe that the lack of governing structures in which can participate while in living in Philadelphia is a subtle cause of dissatisfaction with our city. When people move out to the suburbs, they find their chances of participating in governmental decision-making vastly improved. Philadelphia has bureaucratized politics, and this is a phenomenon deserving much more scholarly and civic attention than it has received.
So Rep. Cohen
Are you saying that you too think more district seats would be a more meaningful reform but politically a hard sell?
Ultimately this bill uses a "carrot" - one more vote - to advance a "stick" - more power in the hands of Dem ward leaders as opposed ot Republican ward leaders but not necessarily the voice of the voters.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
The voters would definitely get more voice...
The voters would get to vote for 7 councilmembers (1 district and 6 at-large)rather than just 6 - that's more voice.
WWGjr
Baloney
Mr. Goode, that's like telling me I can pick from everything over on the 99-cent menu, but I'm forbidden from asking whatever I want from the combo meals.
Your proposal is more smoke, more mirrors, more corruption on City Council. It's absolutely anti-progressive. Tammany Hall continues its march into the new millennium with shining gusto. Why don't you propose term limits for yourself since we know that's not going to happen either?
I'm sure Ms. Blackwell will make sure that this proposal of yours never sees the light of day. If there is one positive thing from your proposal, it's that this would have the one plausible opportunity of ending her career as a member-for-life and dimmest-bulb in the room Councilwoman.
At least if it did somehow manage to become law, West Philadelphia would finally see freedom from her tyranny and could actually do something about their problems.
More District Seats Would Be Impossible To Sell Politically
More district seats would be impossible to sell politically because of the ferocious opposition that could be expected from the business community, the media, and probably at least some of the district council members worried about shrinking their own powerbase.
If at large members were to have their numbers eliminated or truncated, they too would be strongly opposed.
There is a widespread concern that too many of the district council members are too parochial, and that the smaller the districts are the more parochial the council members are. Generally civic groups prefer at-large council members to district council members because they tend to be more responsive to city wide concerns.
Perhaps a neighborhood association here or there would prefer more district council members, but generally they tend to use the councilmembers at large as a back-up team or an appeals court if a given district councilmember is too busy or otherwise unresponsive to appeals for help.
More than "a few neighborhood associations"
I've seen people across the political spectrum put forward the idea that more smaller district seats was preferable. So far I have not seen or heard one single person who was not already an incumbent Democratic elected official speak well of this plan by Councilman Goode. Those two facts together I think speak legions.
At core I would prefer Dems or unaffiliated independent minded progressives on council who show a commitment to serving their constituents not themselves. That said there are many Democratic councilpeople who at times seem more interested in serving the latter not the former.
The end result of this bill in practical terms is that one at-large seat on Council will switch from Republican to Democrat but it will do nothing to make running for at-large as a progressive cheaper. In fact it makes one more seat on Council for ward leaders to shake down aspiring Dem candidates for street money to be placed on the official ballot. In my mind that makes it harder not easier for say a community activist without ward support but with lots of community support to compete.
Under the current set-up because of the disparity in registration both R at-large seats are in actuality chosen by Dems. They have to find something to appeal to Dem and Independent voters to distinguish themselves from the other 5 R candidates.
I would rather have an R on council who has to work to appeal to Dems on something other than cash payments to ward leaders than a system where we get another Dem seat but its ultimately purchased by cash payments to purchase a spot on the official Dem ticket.
On the other hand if all council seats were non-partisan we would see much more competition from progressive candidates with community support but no ward support. That would actually empower progressives. The bill proposed here by contrast empowers ward leaders who sell automatic straight ticket votes, but not necessarily informed voters or competition based on excellence in office.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Politically a Non-Starter
I don't see support happening from DiCicco or Blackwell.
Jannie will die of a brain aneurysm before she votes for something like this.
Her support would be a clear indication that she's developed late stage Alzheimer's.
A majority At-Large council is a non starter with her, not when she has total control over West Philadelphia and controls every pet project that goes on there and throws her weight around Drexel and UPenn and puts on an a display that they should be subservient to her.
But who was advocating that.
I discussed two ideas - many smaller district seats popular which various folks support, sort of on the model of Chicago's alderman system, and what I was advocating - same mix of district and at-large but specify that City Council seats were non-partisan, forcing candidates for local office to run on issues rather than an unthinking straight-ticket vote. Non-partisan elections would be a boost for independent (in the sense of non-affiliated with the party machine) candidates of various persuasions both on the progressive side and the centerist side. It would enrich the electoral debate in other words.
Making elections about issues not the ability to purchase a position on the "official ballot" with cash. I know its a "radical" idea for Philadelphians to get their head around but its one practiced by thousands of other cities in the U.S. including major ones. The world does not end in those cities but it does discourage incumbents who only leave when they die or are convicted which seems to happen here in Philly at an alarming rate.
As an side East, if you are going to take the time to type a response to one of my posts it would be nice if you took time to actually read it.
As a second aside what is the point of propping up a teetering ward system when ward leaders can't even be bothered to make an effort for their own Presidential ticket?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I'm not shooting your ideas down
I'm questioning the reality of ANY of it actually happening.
What you propose is nothing short of destroying or severely tampering with a political machine (not party-machine... a Chicago-style patronage machine) that has had a death grip on the city for 60 years.
It's like my proposal to abolish the Philadelphia School District and replace it with ISDs. It's too much change and Philadelphians, particularly lifers, would be afraid of it.
I know
Actually I tend to think that because of a regrettable media whirlwind by the name of Latrice Bryant that even Councilman Goode's proposal is dead in the water at this point.
I'm just trying to point out a reform that actually would empower progressive politics in a dramatic way in this city by making local city politics about issues not "street money". I would go even farther and say that "old-way" ward politics in Philly actually hurts Democratic performance in national elections because so many folks get disgusted with local Dems they either turn away from the party or politics at all. In another thread I pointed out how in San Francisco where the Board of Supervisors is non-partisan officially, Dem turnout as a percentage of voting population for presidential elections surpassed Philly in previous presidential elections.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.