Saturday, October 25, 2008

Issue 8 does NOT change how the Mayor is elected

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

When voters get into the ballot box and read the Issue 8 language (which was written by City Hall lawyers), some may think it will change the way Cincinnati elects its Mayor.  This is not true. It is a slick word game played by the likes of Jeff “Bengals” Berding to confuse voters.  So let’s take a minute to look at the ballot language as it will appear on voting day, and let’s make sure no one falls for these acts of deception played by the City Hall status quo to protect its interests.

You can find the text of Issue 8 at the League of Women Voters:

Shall the proposed amendment to the Charter of the City of Cincinnati to provide for a method of proportional representation for electing the members of Council whereby each voter ranks candidate choice in descending order from 1 through 9 on each ballot; to provide for the counting of ballots and the determination of results whereby the ballots that are not needed or cannot be used to elect a candidate are distributed to the next highest candidate choice on each ballot who remains eligible to be elected; to provide for the ballot language and direction to voters; to provide for the election of two candidates for mayor in a primary election who shall be eligible for the regular municipal election for mayor; to provide for the election of mayor in the general election; to provide for the choice of write-in candidates; to provide for the election of council and the mayor by ballot without designation of political party; to provide for the marking, sorting and counting of ballots and tabulating the results in a manner consistent with the charter and general election law for non-partisan ballots; to provide for the ongoing validity of Article IX should any provision of Article IX be amended or held unconstitutional or in violation of state law; to provide for the use of mechanical, electronic or other devices for vote counting; and provide other procedures to implement proportional representation by repealing existing Sections 5, 5a, 7, 8, 11 and 12 and enacting new Sections 5, 5a, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13, be approved?

Everything I marked in bold represents the only new changes added by Issue 8.  When the City Solicitors put together this ballot language—in a Jeff Berding style hurry-up offense move so that Issue 8 supporters could not review the contents—they bogged down the wording with legalese explaining the system for electing the Mayor as it already exists. 

In other words, right after the bold font above, you find this line:  “...to provide for the election of two candidates for mayor in a primary election who shall be eligible for the regular municipal election for mayor; to provide for the election of mayor in the general election...”

This is already how the system for electing the Mayor works! There is not a change here. 

So when Jeff Berding goes around talking about how Issue 8 is confusing, he knows that he has been an agent in adding to this alleged confusion!  That’s why he has emerged as the front man for the opposition.  The Democrats don’t want to alienate their real candidates from the voting base that has worked hard to put this on the ballot.  And Jeff Berding is not really a Democrat—at least, his voting record is totally out of line with Democratic values.

Remember, he worked to bring us those terrible stadium deals.  He wanted to erect Guantanamo Bay style tent jails for a massive lock down of people like African American pot smokers.  He supports shutting down health clinics, slashing human service funding.  He is not a Democrat.  Rank-and-file Democrats find his policies disgusting.  That’s why he’s the front man for this effort.  The Democrats don’t want to put one of their valued Councilmembers on this firing line.

Vote YES on Issue 8!

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.

says:
25 Oct 2008  at  06:19 pm | #

So, where’s the confusion?  PR has been promoted to elect Council, not the Mayor.

Since a voter only gets one electoral vote for Mayor, where’s the confusion?

says:
26 Oct 2008  at  08:42 am | #

Why is it even mentioned on the ballot?  Some people will go in on election day, and see wording about the Mayor.  They will be rushed.  They will think Issue 8 has something to do with the Mayor, and that will potentially be confusing.  They did that on purpose.

says:
26 Oct 2008  at  06:10 pm | #

I believe it’s a matter of completeness; when an extant section of the Cincinnati Municipal Code one can either redact offending language and/or insert proposed language out of context, or contextualize the redaction or insertion by avoiding ellipses.

Has Berding spoken of the confusion pertaining to Mayoral elections?  I support PR on principle, but its promotion this year is pragmatic, transparently intended to help Chris Smitherman be elected next year to Council.  That alone is reason enough to reject it.  I’d rather he run for Mayor so his ideas, such as they are, compete in an open marketplace alongside Mallory (assuming he doesn’t take an appointment to replace Cordray if Cordray is elected AG), Qualls (got a survey call several weeks ago and she and Mallory were the only elected Cincinnati officials asked about), and any other person seeking local media’s attention.

If he’ll stop thinking Cynthia McKinney not a lunatic worth referencing, I might even consider voting for JJ2K09 in a Mayoral primary.

says:
26 Oct 2008  at  06:18 pm | #

Smmitherman is not running in 2009.  He already said so in The ENquirer.

H Beatty says:
27 Oct 2008  at  08:25 am | #

So does this make the Mayor and his cronies not Democrats, also?
He does not support PR. There’s more to this than not being a Democrat.
These hucksters don’t want to be under anyone’s microscope. Berding was not part of the Burke shill game until he had to tread water as a Democrat. He’s been carrying water for Timbo since 2007.

Gerald B. says:
27 Oct 2008  at  04:31 pm | #

If PR passes get ready for a new majority featuring Council Members Chris Smitherman, Michael Earl Patton, Justin Jeffre, Georgine Getty, and Brian Garry. Do we really want these people calling the shots with our tax dollars? Didn’t think so.

says:
27 Oct 2008  at  05:23 pm | #

Gerald, pay attention, Smitherman said he’s not going to run and Georgine has never expressed interest in running. I think Michael Earl Patton and Brian Garry would be a nice change from the big money corporate candidates we have now. Maybe the fat cats won’t get as much corporate welfare for a change.

says:
27 Oct 2008  at  05:27 pm | #

Gerald,

So, in other words, you’re saying that the incumbents can’t each get 10% of the voters to select them as their first choice?

says:
27 Oct 2008  at  07:45 pm | #

Well, a) I don’t believe a word Smitherman says; b) I think Georgine Getty is if nothing else sincere and honest and therefore worthy of consideration, and c) as is Brian Garry.  So if my choices, PR or 9x are the incumbents excluding Cranley & Crowley, then none of the incumbents rank and Georgine & Brian are contenders.

Sorry, MEP- you failed the math test, although I suspect you’re a nice enough person.

says:
27 Oct 2008  at  07:54 pm | #

Well Georgine won’t run, neither will Smitherman and I’m not sure if MEP will or not, but how you would vote isn’t really relevant. What’s important is improving our electoral process. The status quo is very afraid right now.

Arrow says:
28 Oct 2008  at  07:35 am | #

Justin, no one is afraid. Stop listening to the shortwave signals the aliens are sending from the mother ship. Let MEP monitor the frequency. PR is going to lose. Period.

says:
28 Oct 2008  at  11:56 am | #

Arrow, want to place a bet on how much money they put up to defeat it? I bet more than $250,000.

says:
28 Oct 2008  at  05:09 pm | #

Gerald B there needs to be a shake up at City council.  I’d welcome the people on your list.  Yes to PR!  Yes on issue 8.

says:
28 Oct 2008  at  05:10 pm | #

I thought making how one votes relevant is the point of “improving our electoral process?”

Yes on 8 says:
29 Oct 2008  at  08:01 am | #

If the current council members are doing their jobs, they will have no problem securing 10K first place votes and will be re-elected. The reality is that historically, they have never looked out for the best interest of the community, which would make it difficult for a voter to rank any of them #1 or #2. Let’s take a look at why they are afraid…

All 9 members voted to support the building of a jail even though the citizens said no…

They all thought it would be a great idea to gouge the taxpayers pocketbooks by installing red light cameras…

They routinely fund projects worth millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations, including a train to nowhere…

Our neighborhoods are in a steady decline, unless you live in an area where a council member has an established business…

The truth is they answer to the big businesses who fund their campaigns, not to the average citizen who lives in the city and pays their salaries. Issue 8 will give the power to the people who pay their salaries, and they are afraid of real democracy. Without PR, Tim Burke and the County Republicans can continue to run this city into the ground. In a PR system, the party leaders have to be accountable to the people, so they won’t continue to have a free pass to do whatever they want. They put JB out front on this issue because he is the weakest link in the city council chain, but if Issue 8 passes, we need to send everyone packing who opposed it. The Mayor opposed it and approved the confusing legal language, so he needs to go… all members on council are against it, so yeah, they need to go too. I don’t have a crystal ball and can’t see into the future like poster #6 can, but I don’t think that those people he mentioned will line up like a bunch of Johns standing in line to give out taxpayer money to corporate prostitutes.

VOTE YES ON ISSUE 8!

NtotheC says:
31 Oct 2008  at  10:42 am | #

It sure seems that the proponents of PR have failed to explain it all that well.  If it’s so easy, why isn’t it easy to explain?

says:
31 Oct 2008  at  07:02 pm | #

What’s so hard about ranking your candidates?

says:
02 Nov 2008  at  07:48 am | #

CAJD is not eligible to vote in Hamilton County and should stop interfering in our elections.

Her opinion on Issue 8 is null and void.

JJ2K09: it’s not the concept of ranking candidates that concerns some; it’s the method of counting to ensure all 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. choices are tabulated vs. sampling or out-throwing.

says:
02 Nov 2008  at  09:04 am | #

U II is D or II U D or IUD--

Most of my family still resides in Hamilton County. I grew up in Hamilton County so I will continue to “shake and stir” elections as needed.  We must continue/begin to hold elected officials accountable.

YES ON ISSUE 8!

says:
02 Nov 2008  at  09:57 am | #

Urbanists:  CAJD’s influence pales compared to the small list of mostly Indian Hill residents who give over 70% of the money used in our local elections.  That’s the real interference.

Also, can you explain to me the details of the computer code that tallies the optical scan ballots?  I mean, I understand how to count—but I’m not sure I get in a specific and precise manner how this computer software works.  Explain it to me, with particular detail, and don’t confuse me.

NtotheC says:
03 Nov 2008  at  11:08 am | #

Justin,

i think the question that bears some explaining is how are the votes counted?  What is the mechanism for someone’s second or third vote?  How are they weighted?

I’ve heard that if your first choice is eliminated then your second choice becomes your first.  Is that how it happens?

Instead of an explanation all people get is some snide comment like “how hard is it to rank your candidates?” That’s not hard, but perhaps counting them is? people might not know and so far there haven’t been very many quality explanations of the system (for or against).  And if that’s the case, i don’t see this issue passing.

says:
03 Nov 2008  at  01:25 pm | #

NtotheC, I think we’ve covered this fairly well here at the Beacon and some from the big money status quo opposition are just trying to make it seem more confusing than it really is. You can look here or ]here if you’re looking for simple explanations. But remember, you don’t have to count the votes you just rank your preferences. Most people don’t know the process used for counting our votes and they don’t really need to. They just need to know how to properly cast their ballot and that’s easy as 123.

NtotheC says:
03 Nov 2008  at  02:32 pm | #

Justin,
I know a little bit about proportional representation.  I’ve read a bit about it since it was on the ballot.  that first link you put up would probably be helpful to people with questions.  the second is a circular reference.

I am not really talking about the people that post here being knowledgable about the system.  This group is likely to know more and to care more about such things.  Of course, you need a lot more people that don’t know about this website.

Any mailing that has come to my house has only listed people that have endorsed the measure but really doesn’t explain it much.

says:
03 Nov 2008  at  02:58 pm | #

NtotheC, unfortunately corporate media outlets have done a crappy job of covering the issues this election, as usual. You had the corporate propagandist at WCPO really doing the worst job of all. I wish we could get some media reforms on the ballot, I’m sure most people agree that the corporate controlled media sucks really bad!

We put out flyers that explain it, but we don’t have the big money behind us. The big money status quo ho’s are pumping out a lot of lies and trying to mislead the community once again.

says:
05 Nov 2008  at  06:38 pm | #

CAJD: Your assumed self-importance (shake and stir?) notwithstanding: a firm No on 8.

Dean: what’s your real question?  How “fill in the box” standardized test forms are scanned by optical character recognition?  Certainly as an academic you’re familiar with this decades-old technology.

Justin: Dan Hurley is corporate?  Who knew.  I thought New Media ruled now anyway.

says:
05 Nov 2008  at  07:03 pm | #

Channel 12 certainly is corporate media. Hurley did a better job of presenting the issue than the rest of the media outlets. The “news” programs didn’t do a good job and neither did the papers. No, corporations still rule silly.