Hot News!
• Register to Vote, Right Now, at The Beacon!
• Cincinnati Progressives on the Bailout
• EXPOSED! Two sets of rules on Fountain Square
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Friday, August 10, 2007
The price of a council seat is rising in the best democracy money can buy
Posted by Justin Jeffre
You can now invest even more money into our corrupt elections than before and that means better returns for the wealthy few. Money is a corrupting influence in politics. It is contempt for democracy. It is nothing more than legalized bribery and an elaborate money laundering scheme.
This is good news for corporate media outlets. More money in politics means more corporate profits. That is the reason why we only get coverage of the horse race (who’s raising the most and who’s up in the polls) instead of in depth coverage of the issues, where all the candidates stand, and deep analysis of our public servants’ voting records. Corporate media isn’t democratic media and they don’t live up to their responsibility to inform our electorate.
More money in politics also means more quid pro quo and more of the status quo. As long as money defines our politics and it takes serious cash to be a serious candidate, citizens can expect business as usual at City Hall. The great divide in our community is not between the Democrats, Republicans or Charterites; it’s between public opinion and public policy.
As long as we allow people in Indian Hill to make or break our candidates and their dollars are the deciders, the citizens of Cincinnati will continue to be the real losers of a rigged game where the deck is stacked. Our community will not move forward because too many representatives will continue to have the wrong priorities. They will have the priorities of people who too often don’t even live in our city and can’t vote, yet they have more influence than our actual citizens do. This must change and has to be challenged.
The corrupt campaign financing of our elections will not be covered by the major media outlets, but you can send them letters this campaign season and hold them accountable. You can ask the politicians where they stand on this issue and make it an issue. Any politician that isn’t talking about campaign finance reform in a serious way is too comfortable with the status quo. The undue influence of big money in politics has got to go and we must demand more.
Together we can clean up our elections, make them more meaningful and get more people participating in the political process. A greater Cincinnati is possible and together we can make the necessary changes. A newly revived clean and fair elections coalition is forming and you can be a part of this change. Campaign finance reform is too important to be left to politicians.
• 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.
11 Aug 2007 at 06:27 am | #
What do you propose as an alternative?
The “price” of a council seat is going up in response to the “cost” of an election. I thought cost of living adjustments were a left-liberal birthright?
Anyway, if there is “bribery” it’s under the table. Few are so stupid as to vote in response to on-the-record bona fide campaign contributions. Influence is influence and I suggest most of it is unreported.
11 Aug 2007 at 12:59 pm | #
As a candidate for Cincinnati city council, I did get the letter to which the article’s link refers, and which explains the increases in contribution limits.
Interestingly, the increase is based on the percentage increase in the mayor’s and council’s salaries, rounded up to the nearest hundred dollars.
This is a petty game which, of course, tends to increase the contribution limits more than the guideline. The limits for political parties was raised from $10,000 to $10,500. This implies a rate of increase of 5% or a little under. A 5% increase to the $1,000 individual contribution cap would mean $1,050. But one rounds UP to the nearest $100, so this means $1,100 or a 10% increase. This is double the rate at which the salaries went up.
Four years from now, will the new base be $1100 and the increase in contribution limits be off of that? If that’s the case then the cap will continue to increase at a rate higher than the salary increases.
11 Aug 2007 at 03:32 pm | #
I still cannot find the council minutes for the last meeting in 2006 where the money is allocated at year end. If someone in blogland could supply a link it would be helpful.
I agree with Justin that our elections have been tainted by the monied influence. Is it possible to obtain a seat on council without selling your soul to the corporatists? Fair elections are necessary for the self governed. What are the ways one can get involved? Do you have any suggestions?
12 Aug 2007 at 07:09 pm | #
This is not news reporting.
It’s not even an opinion piece.
This is some thoroughly indoctrinated party functionary chanting his lessons verbatim (a Michael Moore-ite).
Jeffre doesn’t want to be a journalist; he wants to be Molotov-bomb throwing revolutionary. Either that or a shaved head Hari-Krisha beating his tambourine at the airport.
He can go either way.
ricland
12 Aug 2007 at 09:34 pm | #
Ric Ricland, it is called blogging and I didn’t know Michael Moore wrote about campaign finance reform for Cincinnati. I wonder where you were able to pull that interesting little tidbit from?
I also didn’t know writing about campaign finance reform means you want to be a “Molotov-bomb throwing revolutionary” or “a shaved head Hari-Krishna beating his tamborine at the airport”.
I thought campaign finance reform was a non-partisan issue. It’s a good thing we get your fascinating insights now. They seem so productive. What would you call what you’re doing?
13 Aug 2007 at 02:09 am | #
The piece was one sweeping generalization after another based—or so it seemed to me—on Michael Moore type dogma that all money and corporations are evil.
For example, you write:
Well, that’s not journalism, that’s making a sweeping generalization to support a political bias.
Mind you, news paper editors and op--ed columnists are biased (Hannity and Colmes etc), but what they do that you don’t do is employ—and twist!—facts, to support their conclusions.
You give conclusions with no supporting evidence.
Why should I believe you about Indian Hill? Suppose I’m from Indian Hill, does that make me a crook?
Again, we all have a bias, but skilled reporters inform as they give their opinion. They support their bias with fact. They write something like this:
To sum up, you need to study opinion pieces if you want to do them right. You no doubt have contempt for the reporters at the local mainstream papers, but that’s because you don’t understand what they’re actually doing, the skill involved in their work.
You don’t know the difference between idealism and reporting which is why people like county commissioners will never talk to you—the same county commissioners who drop what they’re doing in a heartbeat to talk to mainstream reporters.
To sum up, you need to forget about opinion pieces for a long, long time.
You’re not ready for them.
You haven’t paid your dues.
ricland
13 Aug 2007 at 05:02 am | #
Yes, mighty ricland, we are not ready and we have not paid our dues. Unlike you, who shows up with a website promoting “citizen journalism,” filled with nothing but rants about Nate Livingston, Ken Lawson, and Nikki X.
Yes, o wise ricland, you have shown us true journalism…
And then I concluded that what we’ve been doing is really a better idea after all.
13 Aug 2007 at 08:26 am | #
What? This is the second or third time you found it necessary to defend Jeffre. Are you his editor or his puppeteer?
I’m 50 years old. He’s under 30. I have a right to criticize him—even if I’m wrong.
By the way, I have a comment for you too. I think the print version of the Beacon is bound to be a success. One mistake I see you making alternative newspapers always start out making—your stories are much too long.
And I know you do it because you want to give readers the depth and coverage the mainstream rags don’t give, blah, blah, blah, but it’s still a mistake. People want their news short, quick, and brutish—even Hari Krisha, tofu-eating, tree-hugging, Green Party whack jobs want it that way, although they’ll swear they don’t.
Also you don’t have enough cheesy stuff. You don’t have enough eye-candy—babes, bods, hot-- looking dudes, whacky ads, local color, classifieds, all the crap Michael Moore and Ralph Nader would scream bloody murder over—you need some.
Look, those idealists you surround yourself with, don’t have a clue about newspapering. Oh, and before I forget, the Escort Services story was good, the photos you downloaded from the internet for it weren’t. Generic photos and graphics kill a story dead. Readers see them and think the story is generic too. Someone should have gone out and got real photos.
But I digress (by the way, I don’t expect you to post this).
Wait a minute… why am I doing this.
There’s an easier way. You need to take your paper to a professional. Try Atlanta. Hook-up with “Creative Loafing” They’ll tell you what you’re doing wrong.
ricland
ricland
13 Aug 2007 at 12:38 pm | #
Ric, I have an opinion and I wrote it. It’s called free speech and you don’t need to pay any dues to use it.
The digital revolution allows everybody with access to the internet to express their opinions. You don’t have to be a CEO or own a printing press and it’s not just Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Peter Bronson and Willie Cunningham anymore.
The fact is, there is a lot of money coming from Indian Hill and going into our elections, but don’t take my word for it, do your own research. You’re a citizen journalist that has obviously paid his dues so I shouldn’t have to tell you how.
The point is, people who have money and don’t even live in our city can have more influence than average citizens that do live in this city because of this corrupt campaign finance system. This corruption has been legalized and is “legalized stealing” as an old friend likes to put it.
It is common knowledge that the Lindner’s for example will often give over ten thousand dollars to multiple candidates. Why do you think business people would invest so much of their money in the political system of a city they don’t live in?
My point isn’t really just about people who live in Indian Hill, it is about the undue influence of money in our political system and how it is a corrupting force that makes our political process less democratic.
The other point I was making is that it’s not in the media’s interest to cover this issue because they make huge profits from this corrupt system.
Reporters don’t control the newsrooms; they get their marching orders from above and have to live within the parameters set by their bosses. I bet a lot of those reporters find it disgusting that our politics are defined by money.
It is you that makes sweeping generalizations. I never said all money and corporations are evil. I do think their undue influence on our political process is corrupting.
To sum it up my friend, my opinions and I aren’t going anywhere.
13 Aug 2007 at 02:19 pm | #
You’ve got to give facts. You’ve got to name names. You’ve got to tell where the bodies are buried. And, mostly, you have to get all of this first—before anyone else does.
But who’s going to come to you with a story? You’re an idealist. Your allegiance is to some virtual Ralph Nader or Michael Moorer.
This goes back to the comments I made about your camcorder terrorism with Heimlich. A few moments after he blew you off, he dropped everything he was doing to talk to a mainstream reporter.
You still don’t understand why he did that.
You saw Heimlich as the enemy. The mainstream reporter saw him as a source. The mainstream reporter got a story; you got nothing.
Reporters provide the public with important information. In your piece above, you just blow a lot of hot air. And I suppose you do that because nobody will talk to you—certainly, nobody in Indian Hill.
Get the scoop! that’s what good reporters do. Beat the Enquirer and City Beat at their own game.
Reporters don’t sit in front of the laptops and think up stories, they go out and dig for them.
Nobody quotes Justin Jeffre, but everybody quotes Stephanie Dunlop. They have to. She’s not writing about some pie-in-the-sky idealism; she’s writing bread and butter news.
ricland
13 Aug 2007 at 04:55 pm | #
"Camcorder Terrorism”!?
Ric Ricland, please don’t call Homeland Security on me, I don’t want to go to GITMO! I hear they torture people there, but they do have a great universal health care system.
You’re about a year too late on this story my friend and why the sudden interest?
Did you see our first video with Phil? I get a little sentimental when I watch the lonely walk.
If you do decide to call Homeland Security be sure to tell on the Dean too. He came up with most of the questions and deserves a lot of the credit. Besides I’d hate to be tortured at GITMO alone.
Ric the citizen journalist, it is Stephanie Dunlap, not Dunlop. I really haven’t seen her quoted a lot, but that doesn’t mean that she’s not a bright and lovely young lady. I don’t understand what your point is. Nobody quotes Ric Ricland and so what? That doesn’t mean you can’t write your opinions on your blog does it? I also don’t understand how someone’s age gives them the right to criticize. What does age have to with this? If I was 60 you wouldn’t criticize me? BTW, I’m over 30.
I don’t think that campaign finance reform is “pie-in-the-sky idealism.” There have been some successes here in this city. I believe there is some legislation at the state and federal level though I haven’t heard much lately.
There’s a woman over 90 that walked across the country to promote the idea. And there’s this quote from John McCain.
13 Aug 2007 at 05:37 pm | #
Hey Justin Jeffre, I for one would be honored to have my name linked with either Ralph Nader or Michael Moore. Both of these
gentlemen have managed to shine the light on corruption in both our political and our economic systems. I think by pointing out the corrupting influence of the giant corporations on politics you are doing the public a great service. Keep up the good work. Vera Z
13 Aug 2007 at 07:38 pm | #
Here we go again; doesn’t anyone know the subject being discussed?
Urbanists II is dead says:
11 Aug 2007 at 06:27 am | #
What do you propose as an alternative?
There is a simple alternative at the city level. It is all-district elections.
The political parties don’t like it because it takes away their power and gives it to the people.
The incumbents don’t like it because it lessens the advantage of name recognition over the challengers.
Big business doesn’t like it because the people have more power than their contributions and lobbyists.
The bureaucrats don’t like it because those elected actually have more power than the at-large council members; they have the people which should be the backbone of democracy. The bureaucrats are roaches that live off the petty fears that the elected whores that they might look bad if they take on the administration and fail. City Hall out to be referred to as a cat house because it has so many pussies.
At-large council people don’t like it because they under the spotlight of their districts. Presently the city council can be likened to a bucket of nine snakes; when you grab at one, it will slide under the other eight for obscurity.
It is a lot less expensive to campaign in a district that to do citywide campaigning.
Now I would like specific reasons why we should not have all district elections!
13 Aug 2007 at 09:49 pm | #
When the Charter reforms were passed in the 1920’s, one of the changes they made was getting rid of the district or ward elections. They found that the ward bosses would control the city funding within the wards and made getting that funding conditional on helping to get the vote out for the hand-picked candidate.
Another Charter change was towards proportional representation. Then someone voting for council had to rank the candidates in order from 1 to 9. This meant that a vote for a candidate who was stongly prefered counted more than a vote for a candidate who was chosen just on the basis of name recognition.
Proportional representation worked until 1957 when it was voted out. Not being here in 1957 I have to rely on others’ testimony, but the way I hear it it was because the Republican party was afraid that an African-American, Ted Berry, would be elected to council under this system. Mr. Berry eventually got elected to council anyways.
The proportional representation system is the best chance for election for someone like Justin Jeffre or myself, who may have supporters scattered across the city and don’t have the money to wage a name-recognition battle. A ward type system would cut us off from most of our supporters.
Further, in a ward type system, if the person representing the ward were corrupt and firmly in control of the ward’s political machinery, there would be no one else to whom one could turn.
14 Aug 2007 at 08:04 am | #
One issue at a time!
Michael Patton says “ When the Charter reforms were passed in the 1920’s, one of the changes they made was getting rid of the district or ward elections. They found that the ward bosses would control the city funding within the wards and made getting that funding conditional on helping to get the vote out for the hand-picked candidate. “
Who said anything about a ward system? While a ward is a type of district, a district is not necessarily a ward. Also this is 2007 , not 1920! The ward system that he talks about is no longer relevant. If for no other reason than ward leaders could not get away with what they got away with in the twenties. Wards would not be relevant in district election processes that I propose.
14 Aug 2007 at 09:26 am | #
I really wish that we could stick to posts which are germane to the subject. Ric has some kind of agenda clearly and to entertain him is counter productive in my opinion.
14 Aug 2007 at 09:43 am | #
In response to comment number 10, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND QUOTES MS. DUNLAP?!?!
LMAO!
From personal knowledge, I have seen her do more than her fair share of “fact-twisting”.
I do enjoy some of her peices from time-to-time, but for the most part, even her better stories are tired. She is that “under 30 year old” that hasn’t paid her dues, that I think you mentioned previously in this thread.
(And BTW the way--get your facts straight when crafting your insults, and they might have a bit more punch...)
While Ms. Dunlap writes extensively, she is also paid for it. It is HER JOB. Those that write for the Beacon do so on a voulenteer basis. They do it because they believe in what they are saying and because they want to offer an alternative perspective to others about issues that they may not be aware of or didn’t know about.
I will assume that most people who read the Beacon realize that alot of what is written here is opinion. I don’t really see the main contributors trying to hide this. I see them looking at big issues and asking people to question things that we take for granted.
A blog, is what it is. It can be an amazing source of mainstream and / or alternative information, or it can be crap. Sometimes it’s neither. Sometimes it’s both. Point being, no one, to the best of my knowledge, that writes for the Beacon claims to be a journalist. In fact, I have many times seen and heard regular contributors deny any claim to journalism very straightforwardly. In saying this, they really do not have the obligation to follow the traditionally accepted ‘rules’ (or lackthereof) of journalism considering they do not identify themselves as such.
14 Aug 2007 at 10:18 am | #
Michael Earl Patton seems to prefer proportional representation system for reasons that are questionable at best.
First Patton claims that “Proportional representation worked until 1957 when it was voted out.”. He makes the assumption that it worked satisfactorily until 1957.
Well apparently it did not work or it would not have been voted out nor was it again voted in in the past fifty years. Whether Ted Berry was the target of the at-large proponents is questionable at best. What would be more plausible would be that the at-large system favors incumbents (republicans at the time) and those that have the money to campaign or pay for the campaign ( republicans again?). In other words it is all about manipulation of the voting system for power. There certainly was the possibility that blacks could have amassed enough votes if they got together but history has shown that blacks have not been very good at forming that cohesive force in Cincinnati. In fact the present at-large system allows for proportional representation. It requires a level of discipline and leadership among a group. The group simply must vote for only the candidate that they support and not dilute their vote by voting for eight of the other at-large candidates.
Patton also contends that “ The proportional representation system is the best chance for election for someone like Justin Jeffre or myself, ...”. That is just wishful thinking. It would take a sizable and zealous following to make a significant difference with PR and that is not realistic. If Patton or Jeffre had such a following, they could do what was suggested in the previous paragraph. Neither of the candidates are going to find enough voters that would be willing to give up eight of their votes for either candidate. Hell, if the voter has to go to the trouble to go to the polls, then that voter wants to use up all of his or her votes and that is how commited many voters feel about any candidate.
And, have these PR proponents no respect for democracy? They want their vote to be worth more than the vote of others. What is wrong with one-man one-vote? It seems that the simpler the voting process is, the more respect and confidence the voters will have for the system. Voters are already disgusted with how some people are buying elections.
Finally, Patton claims, “Further, in a ward-type system, if the person representing the ward were corrupt and firmly in control of the ward’s political machinery, there would be no one else to whom one could turn.”
Well Mr. Patton, what is wrong with turning to one’s fellow citizen? Have you no faith in the common people? In fact in a district system the individual is much more capable of assembling a viable force than he would be in a city-wide population. In a district system, the people attain much more increases in power and the established political parties will have less power; power is a relevant commodity.
It seems to me Mr. Patton that you are supporting something that might help you rather than what is good for all of us. You can refer to the ward system, which is dead or that would be dead in my all-district system; the ward-system argument is a red herring.
14 Aug 2007 at 11:37 am | #
A point worth making: The Beacon is no longer a “blog.” It started out a blog, but has moved into a ezine, and a rather good one at that.
Therefore, it should produce content that adheres to a higher standard. It must not only report the facts accurately; it must also interpret these facts accurately. The Heimlich incident was “camcorder terrorism” not video journalism.
The Beacon won’t grow up until it stops seeing news through the “Sicko” lens—until it stops slanting the news the way Michael Moorer does.
When/if Dunlap reports Smitherman chose the Green Party to curry favor with white voters, this is Interpreting the news accurately. When the Beacon writes Smitherman is the Green Party candidate because he enbraces the ideals of the Green Party, this is Interpreting the news inaccurately.
The latter is the kind of writing Jeffre has made his calling card.
ricland
14 Aug 2007 at 05:22 pm | #
I do have faith in the people—so much so that I trust that they can tell the difference between a candidate whom they strongly support and one that they barely support.
A district system is prone to gerrymandering. It is used that way even today to limit representation of minorities or those of another party.
The proportional representation system worked on a non-geographical basis. Why should geography be the deciding factor in city elections?
I totally disagree. What is played now is largely a name-recognition game where money plays a deciding role. How many council candidates actually discussed actual issues in the 2005 campaign or had firm proposals? Almost no one. List all the specific proposals from winning candidates. It won’t take long. I’ll start: Leslie Ghiz’s proposal to cut council salaries.
No. I’ve talked to many people about the history of Cincinnati. I’ve read books. The Charter reforms were nationally known because they worked. The police force then was considered a model for the country. And it is a matter of historical record that Cincinnati reached its peak census population in 1960.
Actually, it is one person and nine votes. Which is why the proportional representation system worked.
That is an assertion, and dieterschmied has not backed it up with anything.
14 Aug 2007 at 08:37 pm | #
Mr. Patton!
Gerrymandering! It has been one of the stronger arguments against all-district elections albeit still a weak point. Gerrymandering also qualifies as a red herring because there is a very simple solution to prevent it. It is called Dieter-Districting.
Essentially and briefly it is drawing districts by computer and it allows no political interference or manipulation. For years the political parties have been using the computer to gerrymander and I propose the same technology be used to end gerrymandering.
It requires a very simple program.
1. the number of districts desired is decided on.
2. Using something like mapquest, the addresses of each of the voters are entered and then recognized by the computer program.
3. The computer reads the locations of the addresses and the number of voters at the location and start filling districts with registered voters virtually.
4.True north-south lines are maintained but their locations adjust to the population and the length of the district’s borders and takes on the variable property: x= a monomial integer.
5. Districts will take the form of a rectangles approaching squares as the total length of all the lines making up the the boundaries of the districts will be minimized mathematically. When these conditions are met and there is an equal number of voters ( plus of minus the number of districts divided by 2) in each district, the district will have been successfully formed.
These district borders can be as dynamic as is wished, even up to minutes before election day, but that might be too precise for some voter that live on a border of a district.
In addition to the prevention of district manipulation, it is the highest guarantee of one-man one-vote.
Something more elaborate is presently being done in South Africa. Also, the software used by the major political parties is probably more sophisticated than my simple program.
At the local level , at least, there is a solution but is there the leaders to implement it?
Dieter
15 Aug 2007 at 11:36 am | #
Dieter: PR was abandoned after 1957 because that’s the year a Black man, Ted Berry, was elected Mayor and it freaked the bejeezus out of racist Whites.
IF a single multi-member District is to remain (this is what we have now,) THEN Proportional Representation is the better way of electing Councilmembers. I would eliminate the mathematical fallacy of “bullet voting” and the thinly-effective “short voting” and give qualified but underfunded candidates a better shot at being elected.
The system we have might seem ineffective, but does anyone really think the US House of Representatives gets much done given it’s assembly from 435 single-member Districts? The Senate is considered where the grown-ups work, in part because two Senators from each State are accountable to all the voters in that State (a two-member District, essentially) and therefore temper special interests against generalized public benefits.
This current Council might not have much to thump its chest about but guess what? That’s ok. Since bomb throwers like Reece, Smitherman and Winburn, and special-interest fodder like Malone and Cooper (and hopefully soon again Monzel) have left Council, things in the City have pretty well settled down, not back to “business as usual” necessarily but at least “back to business.” With Kabaka Oba’s killing the unseating of the Beatty influence thrown, Ken Lawson’s discrediting, Damon Lynch’s maturation, Juleanna Frierson’s moving away, Nate Livingston’s marginalization, etc., a lot of the genpop bombthrowers too have ceded authority and influence.
So: I think if single-member Districts were the answer something, anything, would have been put on a ballot by now. Nate had his effort, the City had its stupid little commission a couple years ago to get Bortz’s name into circulation, we had the Driehaus/Marshall/Witte plan that went nowhere, etc.
I would look for a “Strong Mayor” ballot issue in the next couple of years and that may or may not portend a change to our 9X At Large system. Maybe that’s what Berding’s waiting for? I’ve read somewhere people crabbing that he hasn’t advanced a Districting plan this Council term, but recall he was part of the “Build Cincinnati” cabal that brought us the “Stronger Mayor” we have today.
Speaking of Berding: what WAS Democrat David Schaff doing hanging out with Pete Witte et.al. in front of Witte’s store this weekend, wearing a Berding campaign T-Shirt? Schaff has ZERO to do with the west side (as does Berding except for another token (and empty) storefront campaign office on Glenway Avenue. How much of a (D) is Schaff, anyway?
15 Aug 2007 at 09:44 pm | #
I suppose at least part of comment 22 was directed at me.
I realize that PR was dropped but I think it was at the demand of a few who had power and wanted to keep it. Not all nor a majority of whites were scared of blacks at that time.
I also know the theory about our national government but just because the national government does is one way, it doesn’t mean that it is also good for local government. In fact federal form should not influence the government form at the local level.
The fact that district questions are not on the ballot today has nothing to do with the feasibility or credibility of the method of electing that is best for this city. This city is notorious for strident bullheaded myopia. It was this kind of Cincinnati thinking that made Chicago. One of the reasons that Witte and Dreihaus couldn’t make it is that they were will to compromise, which translates into a less perfect system. I don’t know who Marshall is; did he have a plan?
There is a need for a real “strong mayor”, but he should be elected by the council and then , once elected, the mayor calls the shots. The reasoning behind the council electing the mayor is that the council should be able to make a more informed choice than the average citizen who has their own job contributing to society in their own ways. There is much more to this concept that the simplistic explanation that I have just stated. I agree that “strong mayor” law that was orchestrated among a few a few years ago and which included DeWine, is a joke.
I don’t know who Schaff is.
I don’t see much difference however between Democrats, Charter and Republican in this city. The political parties here have been a distraction and they don’t serve the city. The use it as a training ground for idiots and to organize fund raisers to determine what whores are to get government appointments.
15 Aug 2007 at 11:59 pm | #
We definitely need to move to some kind of single-district system. Whether all the seats are, or just the majority, it’s got to be better than having all 30 candidates running for the same 9 seats. The current system does nothing to ensure all parts of the city are represented, it only ensures that the rich donors who may not even live in the city get to decide who’s a player and who isn’t.
Jeff Berding ran in 2005 on such an idea. And we’re still waiting for him to propose it. Just like Leslie Ghiz promised to cut Council salaries when she ran for Council, yet appears to have no interest on actually following through with it. Could it be that Berding and Ghiz are liars who will say anything to get elected?