Hot News!
• Proportional Representation: Christopher Smitherman v. Jeff Berding
• Portune’s Deal, Unopposed Republican Judges, and the Case for Proportional Representation
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Hey, Bortz! We’re not idiots!
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Councilmember Chris Bortz, a registered Republican hiding behind the banner of independence via the Charter Party, thinks that voters are too simple-minded to comprehend something like proportional representation (PR)—which is ironic, since PR has been a banner issue for the Charter Party for years. Bortz’s recent comments to The Enquirer are a slap in the face, not only to the Charter Party and it’s principles, but also to every voter with the mental capacity to comprehend something like “rankings.”
The Cincinnati NAACP recently decided to organize in support of PR.
Status quo politicians, like members from the old coalition called the Fiscal Fascist Five, love direct voting for council members because it benefits big money candidates with lots of yard signs.
Except for die hard party loyalists who vote the straight ticket, many voters have traditionally selected a diversity of choices on council in terms of political orientation. Interestingly, the “undervote” has been growing in Cincinnati the past few cycles—in other words, more and more people are choosing less than nine candidates. This may be indicative of growing awareness of strategies like “power voting.”
By voting in blocks, citizens can make sure that their votes carry more weight.
For example, imagine that someone is really only excited about three candidates—A, B, and C. Under the traditional model, that person may be tempted to fill the ballot with six additional candidates just because that’s the way it works. Maybe choice number nine was someone like Jeff Berding. This voter didn’t really care about Jeff Berding, but perhaps his signs were everywhere and his name was recognizable.
Now imagine another voter—one really excited about candidates D, E, and F. This person may do the same thing, choosing Jeff Berding in the ninth spot.
At the end of the day, candidates A, B, C, D, E, and F all got one vote, while Berding got two. This situation may even cause someone to conclude that Berding was twice as popular as the other candidates, when in reality no one liked him very much at all.
So the increased undervote shows that Cincinnati voters are starting to use more strategy in casting ballots. But utilizing these kinds of blocks are only something one must do when voting within a direct election system of a large field of candidates. What if the system itself could be catered to that very manner of thinking? That’s where PR enters the scene.
From a recent Enquirer article:
Councilman Chris Bortz, one of three Charterites on that reform commission, said PR could be “difficult to get people excited about it” because it’s complicated. The three Charterites on the commission voted to return to PR, but the 10 others opposed it, their report saying they no longer found compelling the argument that PR is necessary to assure minority representation.
It’s funny that Republican Charterite Chris Bortz would support PR but then at the same time disrespect the concept as “too complicated.” It’s like he’s trying to make sure he does not contradict the party that lets him hide the fact that he’s a Republican, while at the same time making one of the Charter’s banner topics seem absurd.
• 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.
22 Jun 2008 at 09:09 am | #
If people are already voting in blocks it would seem that there is no need to change the system.
22 Jun 2008 at 10:11 am | #
As already mentioned in the article, increased numbers of undervotes and power voting blocks indicates (1) an increased number of voters who are displeased with the nature of at-large voting for a field of nine, and (2) the fact that the current system does not directly meet the needs of an emerging educated voter base.
It also shows that voters are not too stupid to understand the concept.
22 Jun 2008 at 10:12 am | #
It’s funny—guys like Bortz will be the first to say that they weren’t elected to do what voters say AFTER the election, claiming that following popular opinion is just another way to maintain the status quo. But when given a chance to systemically change the status quo that elected them, they all run away!
22 Jun 2008 at 07:10 pm | #
It’s funny-your criticism of Bortz can be directly applied to Smitherman after his last election to Council on a racial reconciliation platform. It would seem that he didn’t want to change the status quo regarding racial tension; and you could also say that he is still on that same path.
22 Jun 2008 at 09:38 pm | #
JFD, your idea of racial reconciliation may be that we pretend that there isn’t a problem, but I for one believe we have to do the hard work of taking these issues head on. Smitherman led the NAACP’s collaberation with AMOS to get inclusion on that massive Banks project. The way to end the resentment of historical inequalities is to stop them from continuing now.
Smitherman brought people of all races together from across the political spectrum to give voters a voice on a regressive jail tax. Now most of the groups and people are working to give voters a choice on council’s red light cameras.
Your comment has nothing to do with this post (surprise). Smitherman supports PR now and he did when he was a Charterite. This is a major part of the Charter Parties platform. If Bortz doesn’t think people can figure out how to rank candidates, why is he even a Charterite? Probably because he’s a Republican in a city where there’s a majority of Democrats.
22 Jun 2008 at 09:54 pm | #
You could say that, but then you would be wrong.
Council (with the exception of Crowley) has been a huge backer of the city marijuanta law which is applied disproportionately to African-Americans. The city then tells landlords that it doesn’t want them to rent to people with drug convictions, including marijuana possession.
Or take the case of Officer Patrick Caton, who was brought back on the force and promoted after he beat an innocent Roger Owensby to death and the city paid millions to his family for wrongful death. Council passed a mild motion of protest saying that they wanted higher standards for the police. Shorty after that the city promoted the officers who were demoted for the “goof-off” scandal back to their old ranks.
Or take the issue of the new jail, which the entire council backed (Monzel was against the tax increase but in favor of the new jail) even though it wasn’t needed, but would have helped continue the disproportionate incarcerations by race.
Or take the fact that the sheriff was willing to lock up people on the city’s marijuana ordinance at no cost to the city, even though that was against state law.
Or take the war against Section 8 housing assistance. When council members rail against “those people” who don’t “deserve” to live in “our neighborhoods,” as I have heard Cranley and Monzel do, are they really talking about discrimination against lower-income people or against people of a different race? (And even if they are urging discrimination against people just because they are handicapped, elderly, or lower-income, regardless of race, is this any improvement?)
Or take the fact that the city subsidizes expensive dining downtown at the Via Vite restaurant but does nothing to help keep grocery stores open in African-American neighborhoods. Their “Drilldown 52” study says that there are 4 full-service grocery stores in the West End. Let’s see if anyone can find them.
There is still a need for the NAACP.
23 Jun 2008 at 07:52 am | #
My comment rebuts a comment made by Jason. It refers to Smitherman, who is famous for his racially divisive agenda, and his use of his position in the NAACP to support PR.
Since Smitherman does not grace us with his presence, to explain his intentions; we can only surmise that his actions here are based on, his well established track record of racial divisiveness. His grandstanding as it applies to Council races appears to be more of the same; with the added benefit of raising his profile before the big convention.
1) People voting in blocks, is not indicative of displeasure with the at large system, it simply shows they are maximizing their vote.
2) If people are able to maximize their vote then their needs as voters are being met.
23 Jun 2008 at 08:01 am | #
Smitherman is not racially divisive because you say he is. He believes in racial reconciliation. People like YOU just have a problem with intelligent and outspoken Black men.
23 Jun 2008 at 10:52 am | #
JFD, if you think that people are so happy with this system then why do you think so many registered voters don’t show up at the polls?
Why do you think the city stopped using PR in the first place?
23 Jun 2008 at 11:38 pm | #
Jason:#8
Prove it, through his history. Better yet, I’d rather he prove it through his future activities.
24 Jun 2008 at 12:52 am | #
JJ#8
Maybe they are afraid they will accidently vote for you. Just kidding. I think laziness explains most of it; or .........maybe they think they’re covered by the eight or nine times I vote each election.