Hot News!
• Bearman Cartoon: Freestore Foodbank Blogger Challenge
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Lobbyists Hack Your Elections: The OEJC Calls for Voting Systems Recall, Return, and Refund, Part I (2007)•Trickle Down Justice (2007)
•Coming this week: Buy Nothing Day! (and Boycott MTV) (2007)
•Updates on the BOE “Situation” (2007)
•UC Student Groups March to President Nancy Zimpher (2006)
Events
 |
|
|
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Councilman Berding Calls Cincinnati NAACP Initiatives Un-American
Posted by Media Release
Photo courtesy of here.
In this week’s Business Courier, Councilman Jeff Berding wrote a response to the Courier’s endorsement of Issue 8 (Proportional Representation) in their paper the week prior. Berding has had a very poor voting record in supporting African American issues even though he is defined as a democrat and the African American community is the base of his local party. For example, some of his votes included decreasing resources to health clinics, decreasing resources for keeping swimming pools open, and supporting the building of a mega jail. The proponents for the mega jail were misleading the public to believe that the jail was necessary to reduce inmate overcrowding. It is now clear that the jail overcrowding argument was a lie.
Remember, Berding was the mastermind behind the sales tax for the Bengal stadium which was the biggest fleecing of Hamilton County tax payers. The Bengals stadium sales tax is still negatively impacting the County budget right now. If the Cincinnati NAACP had not collected 55,000 signatures last year to place the jail sales tax on the ballot for voters to decide, County residents would be facing the same type of fleecing from the same person in today’s poor economy. Berding was rewarded for the success of the stadium deal with a cushion job with the Bengals; a job he still holds.
In Councilman Berding’s article in the Business Courier, he called the ballot issue for Proportional Representation (PR) un-American. He wrote that extremists will be elected if Proportional Representation (Issue 8) wins. He also insinuated that Proportional Representation is not democracy. Berding has a history of misleading our community for his own personal gain; not just the African American community. Berding has misled City and County residents as well. There’s nothing more American--nothing more democratic--than to go out and collect 15,000 signatures to put any issue, including Proportional Representation, on the ballot. There was no picketing. The Cincinnati NAACP hired a lawyer, the members spent the entire summer canvassing the city to meet the petition requirements established by the Board of Elections. The 93 year old Cincinnati civil rights organization was successful! There is nothing more insulting that Berding could say about the Cincinnati NAACP members than to use code words to describe the members’ actions as un-American and undemocratic. He is simply spewing fear to the white readers of the Courier. Who do you think he is talking about when he used the term “extremists”? Proportional Representation allows 10% of voters to earn a seat at the table. Berding doesn’t want to hear from those voices.
In 1957, the Republican Party overturned the Proportional Representation election method that had been used for 30 years. When Ted Berry was elected under Proportional Representation, Cincinnati’s African American population had reached 16%. Subsequently, the Republican Party ran a fear mongering campaign stating that “undesirables” were being elected and the voting method must change for fear of a Black Power Movement. The language used in 1957 was, “...undesirables were gaining a voice in electoral politics.” Who do you think they were talking about when they used the term “undesirables”? Who do you think were gaining a voice in electoral politics? Then, the code word from the controlling party (republican) was “undesirables”; now, the controlling party (democrat) is using “extremists”. The change to Proportional Representation in the 1920’s was initiated by reformers and resulted in Cincinnati being viewed as the best run city in the country over PR’s 30 year lifetime. In 2008, the Cincinnati NAACP membership are reformers attempting to gain better representation for all residents to City Council seats by putting Proportional Representation on the ballot.
Code words are a regular fear tactic used right out of the playbook by white extremists to other whites in order to prevent African American progress. Code words/phrases and fear mongering were used against many African Americans throughout history, including Mayor Ted Berry and most recently Senator Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Today’s white extremists don’t put on Klu Klux Klan attire anymore; they don’t burn crosses in your yard either. Today’s white extremists wear suits, act like friends to African Americans, and use code words with each other. These code words are one mechanism used to perpuate racism in 2008. Read the article in the Business Courier and you determine what Councilman Berding is saying, who he is talking to, and who is he talking about.
http://www.cincinnatinaacp.org
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
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.
28 Sep 2008 at 06:00 pm | #
here is a code word for you; Cincinnati Beacon = Kook Fringe
28 Sep 2008 at 08:56 pm | #
Berding has a point: PR is un-American and non-Democratic.
Many of the same people who purportly believe that EVERY VOTE COUNTS and we should COUNT EVERY VOTE now ask us to adopt a system in Cincinnati in which every vote doesn’t count.
The NAACP press release attacks Jeff Berding for things that have nothing to do with PR and distorting his comments. Anyone who read the Business Courier knows that Berding’s comments were about the initiative, not about the NAACP or the people who collected signatures. He never said or implied that the process used to put the issue on the ballot was un-American. The distortion and discussion of irrelevant issues suggest that the NAACP senses a weakness in their proposal and would rather make the discussion about Berding and personalities than defend PR on its merits.
No one disputes that the NAACP had every right to gather signatures and place PR on the ballot. The NAACP, however, can’t seem to get a handle on the fact that now that the issue is on the ballot, people, including Berding, have a right to campaign against it and vote against it if they so choose. From what I’ve seen, anyone who has dared disagree with the NAACP has been attacked and accused of being against the Black community. Puhlease.
Not only is PR un-American because every vote doesn’t count, it is also bad for the Black community. Blacks are nearly 50% of the population. PR favors small minorities and will almost certainly result in Blacks being underrepresented on Council
Should PR be enacted, someone like my friend Tom Brinkman, who can’t win under the current system, could put together a coalition of pro-life people and Eastside residents who feel underrepresented on Council, convince them to give him their #1 vote, and quite possibly get elected to Council.
Melva Gweyn, Mary Kuhl and Pete Witte—radical extremists with a dangerous agenda—can’t get elected under the current system. But under PR they could very well coordinate their efforts and get elected on a pro-FOP, anti-Section 8, pro-Westside platform. (Gweyn and Kuhl would certainly throw in a heavy dose of racism too.)
Part of the reason Brinkman, Gweyn, Kuhl, and Witte can’t win now is because they need at least some Black votes to get elected. They also need some votes from Democrats. This isn’t the case under PR.
Now, I understand the strategy and I recognize the game. You’ve got a couple of Black people who didn’t win in the 2007 and 2005 elections and they think they could win in 2009 or 2011 under PR. You’ve also got some 3rd-party types who haven’t been able to win under the 9x system and they think they can win under PR. Many of the 3rd-party folks would also like a system that weakens the influence of the major parties. (Putting PR on the ballot is a much easier task than getting people elected as representatives of the party in large enough numbers to change the party.) PR certainly would the Dems less influential.
28 Sep 2008 at 09:48 pm | #
Well that was a breath of fresh air. There’s never any room to disagree with a position supported by the new Cincinnati NAACP without being accused of being racist. No room for another point of view. No healthy debate. No intellectual discourse. No deep examination of an issue. No less than blind, enthusiastic and unquestioning support.
The analogies that Nate gives showed the other side of the coin and how dangerous fringe groups like those he mentioned could potentially gain power under this system. It was a chilling scenario and certainly food for thought. Label or not, closer examination is called for. Maybe HONEST debate?
29 Sep 2008 at 05:21 am | #
Are you sure you have that website correct? I thought that the Cincinnati NAACP’s website was http://www.naacpcincinnati.org NOT http://www.cincinnatinaacp.org (which redirects to http://www.naacpcincinnati.com (which only links to http://cincinnaticitynews.com ...is someone jacking the Cincinnati NAACP’s name for website hits?
Back on the topic, I think Jeff Berding is starting to sound like Bush Jr. by accusing people who disagree with him of “Being Un-American”. BTW, where is the source article quoting Jeff Berding?
29 Sep 2008 at 05:32 am | #
Referring to #2 above:
Who is writing what? I don’t know why this blog can’t come up with a way of identifying who is saying what.
It appears that Nate Livingston is responsible for the indented portion of the message. The indented portion is directly copied from the initial posting that is attributed to Media Release, whatever that is supposed to be. Is Livingston hiding behind the identity of Media Release?
It seems by the tone of these and other pro-PR postings that the whole thing is about getting blacks elected and not necessarily minorities. If blacks cannot get elected today in Cincinnati with the present system, then maybe they shouldn’t be elected. What is it the pro-PR people want to accomplish? It is obvious that they are trying to manipulate the present democratic system with another democratic system that is their version of democratic. It is obvious that they don’t accept one man - one vote! What is not obvious is their real objectives.
29 Sep 2008 at 06:58 am | #
Using labels, such as “Extremists” or “Fringe Group” does tend to shut a lot of people out of the process; then add to the mix an adjective such as “Dangerous” and and stir well and what we have is a recipe for fear. Nobody wants a dangerous extremist in power, so we exclude them from the debates and all that remains are the well established Dems and Reps and all other voices are silenced, and nothing changes. Vera Z
29 Sep 2008 at 07:51 am | #
I never thought I’d say this, but I wholeheartedly agree with Nate Livingston!
29 Sep 2008 at 09:52 am | #
I’m glad Jeff Berding went over Smitherman’s head to the National NAACP and got his freedom fund ticket. Smitherman’s ego is out of control. He is NOT the end all be all. When will he learn deliberately making enemies is not a wise thing to do. Lincoln Ware said on his show this morning “Smitherman is out here burning bridges and attacking people who do not agree with him”.
For once I agree with Lincoln Ware!
29 Sep 2008 at 09:53 am | #
Whew!
Thanks, Suzie!
For a minute there I thought you were going to pick on the HCDP.
I know you understand that the fewer dialogue and debate sessions we have in the Democratic party just gets us to the business of what I’m, oops, we’re about in cultivating DEMocracry Hamilton County style. When I name people to fill precinct slots, whether they are alive or dead, I’m just looking out for your best interests here in the county. When I make deals to shut you off from having a selection of candidates on a ballot, that’s just tweaking democracy a little, heh,heh,heh!
Make it easer so you don’t have to worry your pointed little head about who to vote for. And with my good friends Berding, Nate and 3M sheparding their friends, neighbors and cronies, I can assure you democracy is on its way out. Just vote for all the items Jeff wants you to vote on. See how fast it goes.
29 Sep 2008 at 10:23 am | #
Dieter not sure what you are talking about
Just as I quoted you for reference, Nate quoted the original Media release for reference. He didn’t write it. Plus if you read his entire post the Media Release supports PR and he obviously doesn’t.
Anyone have a link to the original story...can’t find on courier’s website.
29 Sep 2008 at 12:33 pm | #
Well said Vera Z! There seems to be a lot of fear-mongering going on.
The same people that pushed the jail tax-saying ‘the buildings would fall down, dangerous criminals would be released early and there would be chaos’-are now trying to scare people about a system that has already worked in this city and in other democratic cities around the world. They said that the group of engaged citizens that put it on the ballot were ‘just a bunch of “fringe” people that didn’t know what they were talking about and were putting us in danger by giving the people a chance to vote against their “safety plan“‘.
Well, they were wrong it turned out that though they were a well financed and powerful group, they were the fringe. Nate’s “chilling” scenario is also unrealistic. Anti-choice people already have representation on council with Chris Monzel, John Cranley and Leslie Ghiz. They won’t take over council.
Bobbie Stern, Marian Spencer, Art Slater and Bill Woods are the biggest proponents of PR that I know of. They are “3rd-party types” that have been able to win a lot of justice for our community, but I don’t believe they have any desire to run for office, though I wish that some of them would. Let’s keep in mind it was third party types that brought about the abolition of slavery, ending child labor, giving women the vote and other important progress.
PR is not “un-American”, it was used across the country in the past and it was gotten rid of because there was fear that blacks (like Ted Berry) would start winning elections in major cities. In the US we have the Electoral College and we don’t exactly count every vote.
The current system is an elaborate money laundering scheme where a minority of rich people (mostly from Indian Hill) fund their favorite candidates and get huge government hand outs from those investments. Some status quo politicians are just scared of a system where raising the most money doesn’t guarantee you a seat anymore.
Berding is the one that’s doing the negative campaigning calling people “fringe” and basically stating that PR proponents are too stupid to explain how the system works. He said this knowing that Marian Spencer and Bill Woods two long time PR proponents were in the room.
Nate, can you tell me when Berding has worked in the interest of the black community? What makes you think the Democratic Party is reformable and we shouldn’t we have multiple parties? Any thoughts about where the Charter Party is on this issue?
29 Sep 2008 at 12:55 pm | #
I agree with Comment 4.
Berding’s accusations are more than a bit reminiscent of Bush.
That aside, I am having some trouble understanding what exactly is SOOOOO un-democratic about PR?
I can understand the fact that people might be concerned that their political party of choice might be made less effective by this process, but in all reality, isn’t the two party system in itself, the real deterant of a true democracy?
Shouldn’t we be voting on the best possible person to do a job, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PARTY AFFILIATIONS?
If PR gives more people (in particular, those who will challenge the status quo) the chance to have an opportunity to have their voices heard, how is it undemocratic?
29 Sep 2008 at 02:09 pm | #
librariangrrl
Under the current system, Cincinnatians can cast up to 9 votes and they all count. Under PR, a voter can cast up to 9 votes, but the only vote that counts is your 1st place vote (and, in some situations, possibly your 2nd place vote). Thw winners are decided before every vote is counted. Every vote doesn’t count. Thats undemocratic.
People have a right to believe PR is a good system. And they have a right to support it. I just think people ought to be treated like intelligent adults and given all the facts. They should be told that under PR 8 of their votes won’t count toward who gets elected to Council. Maybe they’ll agree and still support PR. Then again, maybe they’ll agree with me that the system is undemocratic and oppose it.
29 Sep 2008 at 02:33 pm | #
Referring to #10 above:
Bearman!
The comment starts off and appears to be attributed to Livingston because that is what it says. I thought it was Livingston’s words until I recognized the parpgraph in the source article. At this point I was not sure that Livingston was not the author. Part of the confusion is due to not knowing what Media Release is. What is it?
OK, I was mislead because there was nothing to indicate anything other than
.Until a few days ago, I did not begin to realize that the indentation was automatically made when something is quoted.
After taking the time to finally read Livingston’s thoughts, I can see now what is being said. I did not read it after the first lines because I though it was sarcasm. I thought it was sarcasm because I can’t remember any pro-Berding comments on this blog and I did not think that Livingston would be agreeing with Berding. I was dead wrong! In fact, I agree 100% with Livingston’s appraisal of the situation.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
29 Sep 2008 at 02:55 pm | #
Ref: #12
It is un-democratic because it makes some vote worth more that other votes.
Yes, but the people aren’t playing by the “rules”. The people’s responsibility is to become informed and vote accordingly. People aren’t becoming informed and rely heavily, and on many occasion they rely solely on whoever the party endorses while most can’t even tell us the difference between one party and the other.
If it give some the opportunity to be heard then it will be at the expense of others opportunity to be heard.
Also what do you mean by “undemocratic” specifically?
And just how much “chance” will PR provide?
29 Sep 2008 at 03:07 pm | #
Justin
Many of the same people that pushed the jail tax, who you acknowledge were wrong, are members of your coalition.
- Marian Spencer supported the jail tax.
- Bobbie Sterne supported the jail tax.
- Jim Tarbell supported the jail tax.
- The Charter Committee of Cincinnati supported the jail tax.
Uh, Bobbie Stern served on Cincinnati City Council from December 1971 to November 1985 and from December 1987 to July 1998. She supported giving corporate welfare to the Reds and Bengals and other corporations; she opposed numerous reasonable efforts to clean up and reform the police department and stop the cops from killing and brutalizing Black people; she is no friend of the Black community. I challenge you to show when, where and how Bobbie Sterne won “a lot of justice for our community.”
You say PR is not “un-American” because it was used across the country in the past and it was gotten rid of because there was fear that blacks would start winning elections in major cities. Even if that were the reason for PR’s demise in the few cities it was used in, that doesn’t mean it isn’t un-American and antidemocratic. It is un-democratic because every vote doesn’t count. You and the rest of the PR proponents know this is true and it is the central issue to be discussed, but rather than defend this flawed system, you would rather change the subject and argue about irrelevant points.
Not so long ago, you were chiding Democrats for their failure to make sure that every vote counts. You seemed to support the notion that, in America, we ought to count every vote and make sure that every vote counts. You once wrote:
I think you owe it to your readers to explain why the Dems should’ve made sure that every vote counts, but under the system you now back every vote won’t count toward the election of members of Council. Why do you think we should adopt a system where people go into the booth and cast up to nine votes thinking that those votes will be counted and will count toward the election of council, when the reality is—only their 1st choice vote will count; their other 8 votes will be discarded.
I haven’t heard everything said by Berding and to me he isn’t the issue. The issue is PR. The system is undemocratic. It is bad for Blacks. And it is bad for women. And, to be honest, I think it is an attempt by white fringe candidates to get a system that’s best for them at the expense of the majority, which will soon be Black people.
PR proponents aren’t stupid. But they haven’t been open, honest, transparent or forthcoming with information on PR. If PR is a good system, why not come out and tell people that you want them to give up 8 of their 9 votes. Why not tell them, like Jim Clingman finally did today on Black radio, that the intent and purpose of many of the PR proponents is to get 1 person elected to Council and that person is Christopher Smitherman. Maybe people will agree with that position and vote yes on Issue 8. Then again, maybe they won’t agree and they’ll vote NO on Issue 8.
Nope. Now can you tell me why you are trying to make this about Berding as opposed to the issue? Can you tell me how it makes sense for Black people, who are nearing majority status, to vote for a system that favors minorities? PR proponents claim the system will “ensure better representation of women, minorities”. What does that mean? Will Blacks have 50% of the Council seats? Or are you secretly advocating the same thing that Jim Clingman is advocating, namely that Smitherman is the Black community’s savior and we should be happy to have him as our singular representative on Council and let the white community have the other 8 seats? If you don’t subscribe to that notion, please tell me how many Black people you envision being on Counci under PR? Do you think there will be a majority on Council? Do you agree that it takes 5 votes to get anything passed on Council? If PR ensures better representation of women and minorities and Blacks aren’t going to be in the minority, why should we vote for PR? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women are 50.2% of the population in Cambridge where PR is used. If PR ensures better representation of women, why are there only 3 women on the Cambridge Council?
Howard Dean.
For over 200 years, white people have been a majority of the population. Majority rules. So, white people have always had a majority of the Council. Now that Blacks are about to become the majority, white radicals and 3rd-party types say we need a new system that takes away power from the majority (Blacks) and gives it to us (whites and confused Blacks). I’m not against multiple parties, I just don’t think Black people should be dumb and support things that are not in our best interest. Some Black people are afraid to take charge. They actually fear having the power that comes with having a Black mayor and a majority of Blacks on Council. I’m not one of those Black people. I think Blacks have waited for over 200 years to become the majority and now that that time has come we ought to take control and govern fairly over the white minority.
Don’t have a clue.
29 Sep 2008 at 03:51 pm | #
Rather than trying to manipulate language and /or trick people into siding with me, I’ve provided the following for those that are REALLY interested in educating themselves on PR.
The Boston Review article has a nice bibliography at the end listing some good informational sources.
When I say democratic, I am refering to: “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"--obvioiusly, our current system fails to do this--in saying this--that would make the current system UNDEMOCRATIC.
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR23.1/richie.html
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=518
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118840956/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
29 Sep 2008 at 04:23 pm | #
I agree that people are not playing by the “rules”. I also agree that many (most) people are not properly informed. Consequently, I feel that this occurs, in part, as that this “real change” everyone is so hungry for can occur until this system is first reformed. PR is one way to reform this system in my opinion.
29 Sep 2008 at 04:57 pm | #
Another interesting point Livingston made and one to ponder seriously.
“I think it is an attempt by white fringe candidates to get a system that’s best for them at the expense of the majority, which will soon be Black people.”
This issue is, of course, not about Berding or racism or who supports black issues. I hope it’s not about getting one man elected. I’ve not made up my mind but it is good to finally hear some honest debate break through all the bullshit and “lipstick on a pig” diversion that’s surrounded this issue.
29 Sep 2008 at 05:17 pm | #
Nate, I never heard them fear-mongering about buildings falling down, criminals in the streets and chaos. I heard Donald Spencer-whom I have great respect for-pushing the programs that were supposedly going to come from it, but not fear-mongering and scare tactics. (It was Bobbie Stern that instituted the 1.5% for health and human service funding that Democrats like Luken, Berding and his fascist five slashed.)
There is nothing undemocratic about this system. The people can vote for or against it and if it passes and voters don’t feel that they like it after we try it again, the public can change it back through the same democratic process of collecting signatures that we used.
I think it’s a little disingenuous to compare PR to the massive disenfranchisement that happened in Ohio 2004 where black voters had to wait in lines for up to 12 hours because there were not enough machines allocated in democratic districts only, private partisan companies were secretly counting our votes, machines were easily hackable, vote totals didn’t match the recount and a whole host of other problems. BTW, I saw your partisan friend former SOS Ken Blackwell at the airport not too long ago, but let’s not digress.
Many people don’t feel represented in the current system where big money has nullified honest election. Many people try power voting (only voting for one or just a few candidates), but still don’t feel they get real representation. I think PR makes your vote more powerful and it can also work with your district plan.
PR proponents want the public to understand the system and that’s why they are going around and meeting with people in the community. You might not agree with them, but to imply PR proponents have some sinister plan to fool the public into supporting a system they don’t understand isn’t true.
Well I respectfully disagree with you on this because I don’t think this will be bad for women or blacks. I think they are under-represented in the current system.
Honestly, I don’t know what you’re talking about. First of all, I think the term “fringe” is not very nice and I’m not sure which white candidates you’re talking about, but I’m the only white former candidate that I know of that collected signatures to place this on the ballot. (I was endorsed by your black blog and haven’t even considered running for office.) I didn’t propose this to the NAACP, but support their efforts to bring back PR.
Smitherman said he won’t run in 2009 and I’m not secretly advocating anything. I don’t know who will be running and what council will look like, but I do think it will change the current system. (Currently a powerful minority of wealthy donors get to decide who’s a “serious” candidate which means has serious campaign contributions). Do you think the current system gives us fair representation? I don’t and I know a lot of other people that don’t think so either.
The Democrats said in 2006 they’d get us out of the war. That hasn’t happened and all they’ve managed to do besides giving the telecoms immunity from illegally spying on American citizens is earn a voter approval rating lower than Bush’s. That’s quite an accomplishment. Besides, Howard Dean doesn’t have anything to do with the local party.
The abolitionist party was a third party. Did you know that the Green Party has the first all women of color ticket this year? The Black Panther Party was an example of a third party working for the self-defense and empowerment of black people. They started the first free breakfast program for kids in this country.
I think that government should be a reflection of the population, not just in terms of skin color or gender, but also in terms of diversity of opinion. I think we need candidates that represent the public interest instead of the corporate interest. In the current system I think that corporations get all the representatives, but you have the right to disagree and vote against it if you choose. You always make things interesting Nate.
30 Sep 2008 at 06:04 am | #
Nate is distorting the facts. Under PR, every vote is counted and therefore, it’s the most democratic voting process out there. PR was used by the Democratic National Party to make Obama their nominee. The National Democratic Party agrees with the NAACP Cincinnati Branch that the PR voting system is more fair and democratic than 9X. A PR system is always more fair than a “winner-take-all” system because every voter is heard in the voting process.
All one has to do is read the ballot language to figure that out. A person’s vote goes to their 1st choice. If the 1st choice has already gained 10% plus one of the total votes casts or that person HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING, then the 2nd choice gets your one vote, and the process of counting the vote works like that. Any other statement that contradicts that process is simply not true. Sounds like Nate picked up too many Rx drugs w/Junebug.
30 Sep 2008 at 01:03 pm | #
Reference #20 (Justin Jeffre) above:
While, I have personally known these good people, Sterne and Spencer, for years, just what effect are they supposed to have on the validity of PR? What has health funding to do with PR? Decisions on different subjects employ different analysis factors from PR, so why bring them up? /b]
Spending time over something like PR, which will have little effect on the problems this city should be facing is a distraction from the real problems. Suggesting that we try it for a few years sounds like it comes from a clothing salesman in PBS’s “Are You Being Served”. This city doesn’t have the time to be considering a system that will make little difference in solving these problems.
Justin, most of the arguments that you and your side are using are disingenuous. So there weren’t enough voting machines, big deal! They got to vote didn’t they? Enforce existing voting laws by putting those that commit fraud in jail for twenty years and much of what you think is happening won’t.
Do you think for one minute that with PR there are not going to be people anymore who don’t feel represented? If you are so interested in big money’s effect on election why are still supporting an at-large election process, which costs candidates so much to run? At least with local elections, district elections can give people a chance a chance to be heard and to have more impact on choosing representatives.
And with district elections, no one has to be going around to explain the system because it is clear and open. The fact that they are going around to explain PR acknowledges that there is an inherent problem with PR being understood.
Attention!
The thirties, forties and fifties are gone forever! PR was not what made the thirties, forties and fifties anyway. Let the people feel that they can be heard and go for districts if anything. Even districts, while they will make a significant difference, may not solve Cincinnati’s problems. Districts will make for an environment that will encourage citizen involvement. Out of this involvement, individual ideas may surface and we might find solutions to our problems. It is obvious that we aren’t finding answers from our present system.
30 Sep 2008 at 01:15 pm | #
Reference #21 (L.G>
above:
This entire paragraph is bull! Is he saying that votes are not being counted now? Tell us where and when.
Cincinnati is not a political party, so why the comparison?
That Obama was nominated is the test of PR??? What happens if McCain wins? Is Obama the only person possible to provide what this country needs? If the democratic party with PR is capable in finding the best candidate, why are bothering with a national election?
30 Sep 2008 at 02:40 pm | #
dieterschmied, we think PR will have a positive effect by bringing better representation to the people. I didn’t say try it for a few years. I said if the public supports it this November and at a later time decides that it isn’t working well enough they can put it on the ballot and change it back or try something new like your district system. I’m open to looking at a lot of reforms. Our election system is broken.
First of all Nate was changing the subject with an irrelevant point about a different subject. But are you aware that people had to wait in lines up to 12 hours long in Ohio? That’s a serious issue.
People were waiting in the cold and in the rain. Some people were ill and couldn’t wait that long, some people had to get their children or get back to work and couldn’t stand in line for hours. Too compare how the Democrats rolled over when Ken Blackwell and the partisan Republicans engaged in election stealing shenanigans in the 2004 election to PR is a distraction and disingenuous.
No, many people didn’t get to vote and many people’s votes weren’t counted. That’s the point, though it is off topic.
That’s what I’m saying, but the Democrats just rolled over on the issue and Republicans and some people like Nate (I guess he’s an independent) pretend it didn’t happen. I just watched a documentary about it last night. It was quite disturbing and what happened was unAmerican.
But back to the topic please.
I think more people will feel more represented.
I told you before, work with others that support it and get it on the ballot. I’m open to looking at other reforms and PR and districts can work together. The only question about districts is how they’ll be carved up. If your coalition puts what seems like the most fair system on the ballot a lot of people would probably be willing to try it.
I think you might find it harder to come to a consensus on what those districts should be than you think. I think you will still need to hold public meetings about it and explain why it’s better. But districts are not on the ballot so why do you keep bringing it up? What do districts have to do with PR?
That’s why we put something on the ballot that changes the system and you can too.
30 Sep 2008 at 03:47 pm | #
Since OBVIOUSLY ya’ll are too lazy to click the links I decided to do your research for you, and paste it below. The following is what I consider one of the most relevent / unbiased STUDIES I have found on PR....
I’m tired of listening to people run their politicacl progagnada machines (aka mouths) about subjects they have personally not looked into…
Enjoy!
A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States
Douglas J. Amy
Department of Politics
Mount Holyoke College
(An earlier version of this article was previously published as “The Forgotten History of the Single Transferable Vote in the United States,” in Representation 34, number 1 (Winter 1996/7).)
The United States has always had a tradition of single-member district, winner-take-all elections. So it is hardly surprising then that few Americans are aware of our history of experimentation with proportional representation (PR) elections. Admittedly these experiments were few in number. During the first half of the 20th century, two dozen American cities used for a time the single transferable vote (STV)--a form of proportional representation that is often called “choice voting” today. The story of how proportional representation came to be adopted and eventually abandoned provides some useful information about the history of this voting system, its political effects, and the politics of voting system reform.
THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
The political roots of proportional representation in the United States originated in the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century. Besides such issues as child labor laws, anti-monopoly legislation, and women’s suffrage, Progressives were also interested in government reform. Many were particularly concerned about the corruption in urban governments. Large cities often were dominated by ‘party machines,’ of which Tammany Hall in New York City was the most infamous. Bribery, kickbacks, favoritism, and voting fraud were rampant in these cities. The Progressives wanted to clean up these cities and blunt the power of the party bosses.
Their urban reform program included such things as the non-partisan ballot and replacing elected mayors with appointed city managers. Some Progressives also added proportional representation to this reform agenda. They argued that winner-take-all, single-member district elections served to reinforce the power of urban political machines. It was not unusual for machines to win almost all the seats on city councils, based on only 50%-60% of the vote. PR was seen was a way to break these one-party monopolies and to allow for the fair representation of a variety of political parties.
The Proportional Representation League of the United States was also instrumental in promoting the use of PR. Founded in 1893, the League soon followed the lead of English electoral reform groups and endorsed the single transferable vote as the most preferable version of PR. The League eventually began to enjoy some political success when it decided in 1912 that its most realistic goal would be to promote the adoption of PR on the city level. Cities presented the fewest legal and procedural obstacles to PR. Usually cities would only need to change their charters to adopt PR elections. This change could be made by referendums that would be voted on directly by citizens, thereby avoiding the need to convince government officials to pass this reform.
Proportional representation received an important boost in 1914 when the National Municipal League, a leading proponent of urban reform, included PR elections in its model city charter. Soon afterwards, in 1915, Ashtabula, Ohio became the first American city to adopt PR elections. Before long, Boulder, Kalamazoo, Sacramento, and West Hartford followed suit. In the mid-1920s, the first large urban areas, Cleveland and Cincinnati, adopted PR elections, and two other Ohio cities, Toledo and Hamilton, soon joined them. The greatest victory of PR advocates came in 1936 when voters in New York City approved the adoption of PR elections by a large margin. Interest in PR jumped dramatically as a result, with it eventually being adopted in eleven other cities, including seven in Massachusetts. In all, two dozen American cities joined the PR camp.
EFFECTS ON REPRESENTATION
What political effects did proportional representation have on the cities that adopted it? In particular, did PR fulfill the political promises of it proponents to reduce corruption, ensure fair representation, and increase voter participation? Or did it confirm the fears of PR critics who predicted confused voters, lower turnout, and increased political divisiveness?
Scholars have begun to shed some light on these questions. The most extensive research to date has been produced by Kathleen Barber and several colleagues. Their study, Proportional Representation and Electoral Reform in Ohio, systematically analyzed the political effects of PR in five Ohio cities. In many cases their findings were also confirmed by results in other PR cities. For example, Barber found that choice voting produced fairer and more proportional representation of political parties. In particular, it eliminated the tendency of winner-take-all systems to exaggerate the seats given to the largest party and to underrepresent the smaller parties. In the election before the adoption of PR in Cincinnati, the Republicans won only 55% of the vote, but received 97% of the seats on the council. In the first PR election, the results were much more proportional, with the Republicans winning 33.3% of the seats based on 27.8% of the vote, and the rival Charter party winning 66.7% of the seats on 63.8% of the vote.
Similarly, in the last pre-PR election in New York City, the Democrats won 95.3% of the seats on the Board of Alderman with only 66.5% of the vote. During the use of PR, the Democrats still had a majority of the seats, but it was a much smaller one that reflected more accurately their strength in the electorate. In 1941, proportional representation gave the Democrats 65.5% of the seats on 64% of the vote. Moreover, it also produced representation for the Republicans and three smaller parties in proportion to their voting strength. Similar results occurred in the other PR cities, demonstrating that this system greatly improved the accuracy of partisan representation.
Proportional representation also encouraged fairer racial and ethnic representation. It produced the first Irish Catholics elected in Ashtabula, and the first Polish-Americans elected in Toledo. In Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Toledo, African-Americans had never been able to win city office until the coming of PR. Significantly, after these cities abandoned PR, African-Americans again found it almost impossible to get elected.
EFFECTS ON POLITICAL MACHINES
At times, proportional representation helped undermine the power of political machines and party bosses. In several cities, such as Cincinnati, the machines lost their majorities and their grip on power. After the transition to PR, Cincinnati went from a city with one of the worst reputations for corruption to one that won praise for the integrity and professionalism of its city government. Interestingly, even in cities where the dominant party retained its majority, PR sometimes helped to curb the power of the party bosses. It did so by allowing the election of independent Democratic and Republican candidates--candidates nominated by petition and not beholden to party bosses. PR proponents were correct, then, in predicting that this candidate-centered system would take power away from party leaders and give more of it to voters.
EFFECTS ON WASTED VOTES
Proponents of proportional representation also believed it would minimize wasted votes. They argued that the ballot transfer process would ensure that most people would cast effective votes--votes that actually elected someone to office. The evidence supports this claim. In Cincinnati, the number of effective votes improved dramatically, rising from an average of 56.2% in the three pre-PR elections to an average of 90% for the 16 PR elections. Similar effects were found in other PR cities. In Cleveland, the number of effective votes increased from an average of 48.3% in the pre-PR period to an average of 79.6% during the PR period. And in New York City, the number of effective votes grew from an average of 60.6% to 79.2% with PR.
EFFECTS ON THE PARTY SYSTEM
How did proportional representation effect the size of the party systems in these cities? Did it subvert the traditional American two-party system, as some critics feared it would? Not always. In some cities, PR produced a stable two-party system. In Cincinnati, the PR elections were contested between the Republicans and the Charter Committee, with no minor party candidates winning representation. Indeed, only once in all of the PR elections in the five cities in Ohio did a minor party candidate win office--a Socialist in Ashtabula in 1915.
The situation was different in New York City--an intensely cosmopolitan area with a variety of political cultures. PR nurtured a vigorous multi-party system, where at any one time the Democrats and Republicans were joined on the city council by three smaller parties, including the American Labor party, the Fusion party, and the Communist party. In general, however, PR did not seem to automatically favor a multi-party system over a two-party system, but instead it tended to produce a party system that reflected whatever degree of political diversity already existed in particular cities.
EFFECTS ON VOTER TURNOUT
Proponents of proportional representation had predicted higher voter participation, reasoning that having fewer wasted votes and more choices at the polls would give citizens more incentive to vote. Opponents had forecast a drop in turnout, with voters discouraged by complicated ballots and incomprehensible vote counting procedures. In reality, however, PR seemed to have little effect on voter turnout. Barber and her colleagues looked at turnout rates before, during, and after the use of PR in five Ohio cities and found little correlation between voting system and the degree of voter participation. She concluded that “the emergence and disappearance of local issues and candidates appear to have had more to do with the act of voting than did the form of the ballot.” (1) The scattered evidence from other PR cities seems to confirm the importance of local factors, with some cities seeing increased turnout with the adoption of PR and others seeing a decline.
EFFECTS ON POLITICAL STABILITY
Another common concern of PR critics was that it would increase political conflict and divisiveness. They worried that it would encourage so-called ‘bloc voting’ along ethnic, racial, religious, and class lines, and that the resulting city councils would be paralyzed by conflict. In practice, PR often did result in substantial bloc voting. But as defenders observed at the time, so too did winner-take-all elections. As noted earlier, PR also produced some city councils that were more demographically and politically diverse. But there is no evidence that this increased political pluralism had any detrimental impact on the workings of these city councils. In the five Ohio PR cities, Barber and her colleagues found “no systematic evidence of greater dissension on PR elected councils, compared the councils elected by other means.... Indeed, striking decreases in conflict were found after PR/STV was implemented in Hamilton and Toledo.” (2) This lack of increased conflict may have resulted from the ballot transfer process in choice voting, which may have encouraged politicians to be more civil to each other so as not to risk alienating potential supporters.
THE OVERALL EFFECTS OF PR
On the whole, from the available evidence, proportional representation seemed to have a beneficial effect on the cities that adopted it. It clearly produced more representative government and, where voters wanted it, a more diverse party system. Large increases in the number of effective votes were also enjoyed in these cities. It may not have resulted in the substantial increases in voter turnout that proponents predicted, but neither did it produce the increases in voter alienation that critics feared. And finally, even though PR city councils were often more diverse politically, this did not seem to impair their political efficiency or effectiveness.
THE ABANDONMENT OF PR
If proportional representation amassed such a generally favorable record, why was it eventually rejected by all but one U.S. city, Cambridge, Massachusetts? The answer to this question is complex, with a number of factors playing a role in the abandonment of PR. Sometimes the reasons were primarily local. In a few cities dissatisfaction grew over other elements of the reform charters, such as the city manager, and when the reform charter was thrown out, PR went with it.
However, there were several common factors at work in many of the cities that abandoned proportional representation. For instance, this system universally came under attack from the politicians and parties who lost power and privileges. In Michigan and California, the dominant political parties mounted legal challenges and the courts in these states ruled that PR violated their constitutions. A more common attack was the effort to repeal PR by popular referendum. The referendum was a two-edged sword for PR--initially making it easier to adopt this reform, but also making it easier for opponents to challenge it. In Cleveland, well-financed opponents sponsored five repeal referendums in the first ten years of PR, with the final one succeeding. Similarly, PR opponents in Hamilton finally won their repeal effort after four failed referendums in 12 years.
Another common factor contributing to the demise of proportional representation was the inability of supporters to defend it effectively. By 1932, the PR League was losing steam. It was unable to finance its separate existence and had to merge with the National Municipal League. In some cities, the progressive political coalition that supported PR gradually disintegrated. Important reform leaders lost interest over the years, moved to the suburbs, or died. Two exceptions to this trend were Cincinnati and Cambridge, both of which had active and well-supported organizations dedicated to defending PR. In Cincinnati the Charter Committee aggressively defended proportional representation and it survived there for over thirty years, despite repeated challenges. The Cambridge Civic Association has also proved to be a energetic and capable defender of PR and has defeated every repeal effort to date.
Another factor working against defenders of proportional representation in many cities was the controversial nature of minority representation. Many Americans in the early twentieth century were hostile to political and racial minorities--the very groups aided by PR. Opponents of PR were not above fanning the flames of prejudice in their efforts to get rid of this reform. In particular, critics often played upon two of the most basic fears of white, middle class Americans: communists and African-Americans.
In Cincinnati, race was the dominant theme in the successful 1957 repeal effort. The single transferable vote had allowed African Americans to be elected for the first time, with two blacks being elected to the city council in the 1950s. The nation was also seeing the first stirrings of the Civil Rights movement and racial tensions were running high. PR opponents shrewdly decided to make race an explicit factor in their repeal campaign. They warned whites that PR was helping to increase black power in the city and asked them whether they wanted a “Negro mayor.” Their appeal to white anxieties succeeded, with whites supporting repeal by a two to one margin.
In New York City, fear of communism proved the undoing of proportional representation. Although one or two Communists had served on the PR-elected city council since 1941, it was not until the coming of the Cold War that Democratic party leaders were able to effectively exploit this issue. As historian Robert Kolesar discovered, the Democrats made every effort in their repeal campaign to link PR with Soviet Communism, describing the single transferable vote as “the political importation from the Kremlin,” “the first beachhead of Communist infiltration in this country,” and “an un-American practice which has helped the cause of communism and does not belong in the American way of life."(3) This “red scare” campaign resulted in the repeal of PR by an overwhelming margin.
Just as the adoption of the single transferable vote in New York City prompted other cities to consider this reform, its well-publicized defeat there also encouraged repeal efforts in other PR cities. PR was abandoned in neighboring Long Beach and Yonkers in 1947 and 1948. Repeal campaigns also won in Boulder (1947), Toledo (1949), and Wheeling (1951). The PR movement never recovered from these defeats; and although supporters remained optimistic, the 1950s saw the repeal of PR in one city after another. By 1962, only Cambridge, Massachusetts retained this system.
While the repeal of proportional representation in these American cities is taken by opponents as evidence that this voting system failed, proponents argue that it is more accurate to conclude that this system was rejected because it worked too well. They note that PR worked well in throwing party bosses out of government--bosses who never relented in their attempts to regain power--and it worked well in promoting the representation of racial, ethnic, and ideological minorities that were previously shut out by the winner-take-all system. For advocates of PR, then, it was the very political successes of this system that set the stage for a political backlash that was effectively exploited by its opponents and eventually led to the its demise in most of these cities.
__________________________________________
1. Kathleen L. Barber, Proportional Representation and Election Reform in Ohio (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1995), p. 295.
2. Barber, Proportional Representation, p. 305.
3. Robert J. Kolesar, ‘Communism, Race, and the Defeat of Proportional Representation in Cold War America’ (University Heights, Ohio: History Department, John Carroll University, 1996), pp. 4-5.
Located at: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm
30 Sep 2008 at 04:01 pm | #
.
Stop by the Winton Woods, Hamilton County Parks Boat-House and ask are they having any problems with the Canadians ?
The District and Regional Management team will fill you in on all the details !
Ask what their minority employment ratio is !
Don’t claim to be progressive, because then you are one of those guys !
.
30 Sep 2008 at 04:55 pm | #
What’s with all caps? And how come you let that confused mouthpiece L.G. get away with the slanderous accusation against Livingston in #21? Isn’t that against the rules?