Saturday, November 01, 2008

Charterite Chris Bortz:  Charter’s Cincinnati-style PR not right for Charter, or Cincinnati?

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

In an amazing act of double-speak, Charterite Chris Bortz has suggested that the Cincinnati form of Proportional Representation—one of the hallmark reform systems central to the existence of the Charter Party—might not be right for either Cincinnati, or the Charter Party.  A recent column by Bortz indicates the depths of his betrayal to his own party.

"First and foremost, there has been no process to be inclusive and educate people on this new system,” said Bortz.  “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.”

Interestingly, Bortz has not hopped on board to help educate people about the Cincinnati-style form of PR—first introduced by the Charter Party and placed on the ballot this time by the NAACP.  Instead, he has teamed with Gerald “Bengals” Berding to engage a smear campaign against Issue 8.  One must wonder why Bortz would campaign against PR instead of helping to foster discussion, debate, and deliberation.

Bortz continued to criticize not only PR, but the intelligence of average voters.  “Finally, I believe it would be irresponsible at this time to be a proponent of a system in which the average voter, and even some of the more informed voters, have a difficult time explaining,” he concluded.

I have not met anyone who has a difficult time explaining how to rank candidates from 1 through 9.  Counting is a very simple concept.  The confusion about which Bortz speaks has been manufactured by the political opposition to Issue 8. 

For example, I have volunteered on behalf of the campaign to visit a few community councils, speaking about how PR works.  At every community, people were very open and receptive to everything I said.  I explained how voters would rank their choices, and how votes would transfer to second choices if they were not necessary to help elect a first choice.

Now, at some forums, a member of the political establishment was present—perhaps a campaign staffer for a Republican, or a Democrat.  These were the only people who would raise their hands, when I paused for questions, to introduce some cockamamie.  See, it is only these insiders who are going around, trying to make the issue more confusing than it is.  To see Bortz participating in the perpetuation of this cockamamie further emphasizes his desire to defeat Charter’s very own Cincinnati-style form of Proportional Representation.

This is a knife wound through the heart of the Charter Party.  Chris Bortz represents either the new face of an unprincipled Charter Party, with nothing to hold them together as a cohesive movement for local reform, or he represents a force the traditional Charter base needs to exorcise before their group’s core values are totally undermined.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Spearhead says:
01 Nov 2008  at  08:13 am | #

Chris Bort$ is only out for himself and continually shows his true stripes. He has been playing a slippery game of doubletalk with the PR issue. He must think he is at Burger King because he wants it his way. He is also trying to push the homeless out on the street to help his rich developer pals in Over the Rhine. Don’t be fooled. His use of Charter is nothing more that that, he is using it. When with the committee wake up and realize that they’re being played like a cheap fiddle and Bort$ just wants to treat them like one of illegals that work for his company.

JFD says:
01 Nov 2008  at  09:32 am | #

You’re absolutely right about PR being easy to understand. It allows a minority of voters to manipulate the election process to their advantage. It’s so simple a child can understand it.

says:
01 Nov 2008  at  12:59 pm | #

Getting representation isn’t manipulating the system JFD. The small minority of big business donors give 23% of the large campaign contributions in the current system. About 73% of the campaign money comes from them. Most of the people in this powerful minority don’t even live in our city yet they manipulate our elections with the power of their big money.

says:
01 Nov 2008  at  02:49 pm | #

JFD, so you must be one of the people who thinks that the current City Council members are doing such a great job, that none of them could get just 10% (plus one) of the voters to choose them as their number one choice. 

Very, very interesting…

LG says:
02 Nov 2008  at  12:24 am | #

This is definitely a campaign issue for Bortz...hopefully voters who support Charter member keep in mind that Bortz was against Issue 8 and hold him accountable for such a move.  PR is Charter’s baby...how could he go against it?

JFD says:
02 Nov 2008  at  01:11 am | #

Spearhead,
Bortz stepped up and helped the West End and surrounding communities in their fight against Citylink. The perpetrators of Citylink intended, that it take the place of the DIC and other social service agencies in OTR. How does his opposition to Citylink, assist his, “rich developer pals”, in OTR? Also, how would pushing the homeless out on the street be possible? Aren’t the homeless already, “out on the street”?

Richard Lung says:
02 Nov 2008  at  04:56 pm | #

Cincinnati PR is the democratic voting system, and in a world so full of undemocratic voting systems, that is why the status quo tends to rear its ugly head (no reflection on Mr Bortz intended) against PR - successfully for fifty years, in Cincinnati’s case.

You are not alone. British Columbia is currently having a deplorably unequal contest campaigning for an essentially similar method to Cincinnati PR. And like-minded reformers in the UK and New Zealand are having to inch their way forward against entrenched opposition.

My best wishes to Cincinnati, that it may vote yes to issue 8, to replace an extremely inequitable and ambiguous 9X voting system, with their heritage of a freely preferential PR.