Hot News!
• Does Bortz Supportz Openness and Transparency? An open letter…
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Orphans on meds and in therapy! (2008)•Commissioners Urge Comprehensive Approach to Safeguard Young Drivers (2008)
•U.S. Last in Halting Deaths by Preventable Disease (2008)
•Commissioners Require Full Disclosure, New Ethics Rules (2007)
•Moyers: For America’s Sake (2007)
•Report: Gates Foundation Causing Harm With the Same Money It Uses To Do Good (2007)
•January Monzel Report (2007)
•Anti-Wal-Mart Action Campaign for Fair Health Care (2006)
•We Don’t Need Another Hero: Reflections on Leadership (2006)
•Crossroads Community Church On CityLink (2006)
Events
 JANUARY 11 WOMEN’S MIDWINTER RETREAT 1:30 - 5 pm - Presented by: The Center Within Sisters of Charity Motherhouse, Mt. St. Joseph, situated on the hillside overlooking the Ohio River, offers us the beauty of winter. Winter is a time when the tree roots are growing in quiet hibernation, encouraging us as well to take time for prayer and inner reflection on the goodness and beauty of life within us. Come, join the circle of women on the journey of life during this midwinter season. We will together create sacred space, which includes: Song and Guided Prayer/ Reflection - Quiet Reflective time for Listening Within - Sharing our Stories (if you wish) - Celebrating our Lives Together in Ritual Led by: Kathleen Hartman Blackburn, Donna Steffen, SC, Mary Ann Humbert Held at: Rose Room at Sisters of Charity Motherhouse, 5900 Delhi Road, Mt. St. Joseph, OH 45051 - From River Road (50 West), turn Right onto Fairbanks, which becomes Delhi. Stay on Delhi until it deadends at the entrance to the Sisters of Charity Motherhouse. A parking lot is found just past the buildings. Use main entrance! Fee: $25. ($30. after Jan.3 (Mail Registration Below. Keep time, info, and directions. ) Checks/ Registration to: The Center Within, PO Box 6027, Cincinnati, OH 45206 Information: 513-751-3358, 513-681-8881, , http://www.TheCenterWithin.org |
JANUARY 19, 9 am - 4 pm ARTIN LUTHER KING JR. SERVICE FOR PEACE DAY
|
January 28 6 pm - 7:30 pm
|
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Cincinnati NAACP does not support Jeff Berding’s Plan
Posted by Media Release
The Cincinnati NAACP does not support Council Member Jeff Berding’s plan to create 4 districts and 5 at large seats for the City of Cincinnati. This plan will bring no greater representation to city council but will maintain the same power structure. The Cincinnati NAACP does endorse its own ballot initiative and has put forth its own solution to redistribute power fairly within Cincinnati City Council elections.
Smitherman says, “ The status quo is still in shock and awe that the Cincinnati NAACP and its partners collected 15,000 signatures this summer to place Proportional Representation (PR) on the ballot.” The Cincinnati NAACP for 93 years has understood that we’ve always had elected officials like Council Member Jeff Berding that stood in the doorway of progress. Our former President of the Cincinnati NAACP Theodore Berry was undermined by the same status quo in 1956.
The Cincinnati NAACP remains concerned with Council Member Berding’s overall public policy direction. Berding supported building a new jail in 2007and supported cutting our health clinics by $3 million dollars. Also, Berding just rejected a grant that could help lower infant mortality rates in the African American Community. Council Member Berding put together the sales tax for the Paul Brown Stadium that has placed Hamilton County in financial crisis.
Now Councilmember Berding after the Cincinnati NAACP has given voters a choice from a “winner-take-all” system to a system called Proportional Representation (PR) that elected Senator Barack Obama to nominee for President of the United States Berding says, “He has a plan.”
Smitherman says, “ The Cincinnati Branch does not support Council Member Berding’s plan and it looks like the same tactic used in 1956 when African Americans began to gain political power in Cincinnati.”
• 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.
03 Sep 2008 at 06:27 am | #
The NAACP’s plan:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3813887/Cincinnati-2008-Proportional-Representation-Petition
I’ll have to take some time to read it. In general, I support Proportional Representation, but I am not sure how much of a benefit it will provide vs. the current council election system.
03 Sep 2008 at 08:12 am | #
Excuse me, but how can Smitherman justify the statement that the Berding plan will bring no greater representation to city council but will maintain the same power structure? Having at least four districts will, at the very least, give more power to the people than is given by the present system. While I don’t endorse the Berding plan, for Smitherman to claim that it will maintain the same power structure is nothing more than either ignorance or a malicious lie.
And I would like to hear what Smitherman and the rest of his followers mean when they refer to the present system as “winner takes all”. I have asked this question before and it has never been answered. I think the reason it has not been answered is because they don’t understand what it means either. It is a catchy phrase that has not been analyzed, which is typical of those that have convictions that can’t be supported with logical argument.
If these PR zealots can come up with any type of explanation of “winner takes all” , then I want to know how it does not apply to PR. And how can it be said that “Our former President of the Cincinnati NAACP Theodore Berry was undermined by the same status quo in 1956.” Cincinnati in 2008 is not the same as Cincinnati in 1956! An that claim is is nothing more than either ignorance or a malicious lie.
And typical of inconsistent logical argument is the attempt to attack Berding rather than his plan. I don’t know what or how Berding voted on the issues but I fail to see the nexus between those issues and the election issue. Perhaps they thing that if they create enough smoke, the primary issue will be obscured.
03 Sep 2008 at 09:09 am | #
.
So is PR designed to assure an Afican American controled agenda ?
.
03 Sep 2008 at 01:58 pm | #
Hmmmm , thanks for the link to the actual petition.
Does anyone believe that more than one percent of the signers of the petition actually read the petition before signing?
Of the less than the improbable one percent of the signers, how many could actually demonstrate what the petition stated?
The good thing about democracy is that everyone can vote and sign petitions.
The bad thing about democracy is that everyone can vote and sign petitions.
AND WHOEVER DOES A VOTING FALSIFICATION IS GUILTY OF A FIFTH DEGREE FELONY!
03 Sep 2008 at 07:21 pm | #
I collected 10% of the petitions. The people I spoke with understood what they were signing.
The Berding plan of 5 districts with 4 at-large seats changes little about the existing power structure. If Berding really cared about districts, he would be proposing 9 districts, 0 at-large seats as the community would prefer.
Berding’s questions at the hearing were all geared towards attacking the PR movement. Why didn’t he ask what options could satisfy the petition? If certification of new software would take 18-36 months, this obviously is NOT an option on the table for the next election. Berding quoted estimates from Sally Krissel as if gospel, yet he asked no pointed questions about how much research Hart’s representatives did in coming to their $1.5-$3 million dollar estimate. The City of Long Beach, which is larger than Cincinnati, got an estimate of $1.2 million for a new ranked choice voting system. Also, hand counted ballots, what was used in Cincinnati, Cleveland and other cities that have used proportional representation, was not considered even though it is the only option that might feasibly work. This would cost anywhere from $20,000-$40,000 (as it did in Cambridge to hand count proportional representation ballots in the same system).
The discussion of proportional representation has stimulated a public
debate, one in which council member Berding called for the
implementation of his plan for 5 districts, 4 at large seats.
Note of course that councilman Berding is supported by the smallest
number in our community: 38.3%. This system is a major threat to his
chances of continuing as a representative in our community. But more
importantly, let’s talk principles.
Districts are only as fair as the politicians who gerrymander them --
whether you can elect someone or not depends primarily on which district
you are put into. Furthermore, they only represent one person in each
area, and that means a lot of people are unhappy with their
representative. But the bottom line is that distircts aren’t on the
ballot: proportional representation is what is on the ballot, it ensures that people in communities across the city will be quite likely to help elect their
first choice and to win a strong voice on council. Districts also lead
to less choices and stifle voters having more diversity to choose from,
as well as vote-splitting and “spoilers.”
03 Sep 2008 at 07:21 pm | #
Could it be that Mr. Smitherman meant it literally when he said “winner take all” and has described the winners? Take the last election when all 9 council members were returned to their seats. Who won? The people? The residents of Cincinnati were never represented before by these council seats and all corporate contributions went to the purchase of media for their benefit. Contributions are the catalyst for the transformation of public funds into private wealth.
I don’t know if PR will work any better than the current horse race we call an election but I do know our current reality demands change that allows concerned citizens input and transparency in decision making. Winner take all doesn’t mean republicans and democrats, it means the corporations or the people. Know them by their actions and follow the money.
03 Sep 2008 at 08:17 pm | #
In the current 9X system, a minority can elect the majority of the city council seats.
One clear downside to winner-take-all voting is that VOTERS WHO SUPPORT losing candidates are denied representation, even if they win substantial numbers of votes. In the 9X system, candidates won in 2007 with as little as 37.9% (Chris Monzel), 38.3% support (Jeff Berding), 40.5% support for Leslie Ghiz, 40.5% for
Lakita Cole, to as high 43.1% for Chris Bortz of the non-majority
supported candidates.
Cranley (54.9%), Crowley (50.9%), and Roxanne Qualls (54.9%) all
received majority support, yet are a minority voting block on City
Council (3/9 votes, or 33%). This data points to a strong discrepancy of
who gets representation in Cincinnati. As evidenced in this data of the
9X outcomes, it is possible for 54.9% of voters to receive less than a
majority of representation.
As you can see, 45% can show up and vote for any 9 candidates they like and potentially win all 9, or at least 6 out of 9 seats. Yet they are not a majority. Better Ballot for Cincinnati supports majority rule, and this system doesn’t produce that.
Also, in 9X, if you like 4 candidates a lot (because they match your values), 3 candidates ok, and 2 candidates not much, if you vote for all 9, you are helping the 2 you don’t like defeat the 4 that match your values. Same goes for voting for the 3 you like so-so. This leads one to consider bullet-voting, or only voting for the 4 that you like the most. In that scenario, not everyone’s vote is equal, and this certainly flies in the face of the concept of “one person, one vote.”
Proportional representation leads to 80% of the voters electing their 1st or 2nd choice (based on research from Cambridge, a city equal in size to Cincinnati that has used proportional representation for over 50 years now). Voters rank choices, as easy as 1, 2, 3! Perhaps this is complicated for special interests to rule our city who are a minority, and that is perhaps why Berding doesn’t like proportional representation. But he is only one vote out of 160,000, and we don’t need his vote to win, thankfully.
03 Sep 2008 at 10:02 pm | #
Anthony Lorenzo says:
03 Sep 2008 at 07:21 pm | #
The Berding plan of 5 districts with 4 at-large seats changes little about the existing power structure. If Berding really cared about districts, he would be proposing 9 districts, 0 at-large seats as the community would prefer
Where do you get off questioning Berding’s motives over districts? There is a reason for at-large districts that should be obvious to anyone of average education and intelligence. Try thinking about the reason that the founders of this country decided to have both a senate and a house of representatives. Are you really that dense?
the Lorenzo continues with: Districts are only as fair as the politicians who gerrymander them --
whether you can elect someone or not depends primarily on which district
you are put into. Furthermore, they only represent one person in each
area, and that means a lot of people are unhappy with their
representative.
What is the hell is he talking about? First, it is not necessary to have politicians determining district boundaries. I know that I have posted alternative ways to determine districts without political influence but apparently it goes over his head. And the last four lines are just plain nonsensical. Is he saying that if one votes for a loser, then the winner will no longer represent the losing voter? Is that what is wrong with our present system where only 12% of the citizenry elect the average winners? Is that why we feel the council doesn’t represent most of the people? Incredible!
03 Sep 2008 at 10:17 pm | #
Anthony Lorenzo says:
03 Sep 2008 at 08:17 pm | #
In the current 9X system, a minority can elect the majority of the city council seats.
What a revelation! Not only can a minority currently elect the majority of the city council, but a minority has always elected the entire city council! Do the third grade math. Use the actual absolute numbers and forget about your fantasy figures about a situation that will only exist in your dreams.
And what is wrong with “bullet-voting”? I seldom vote for more than three council candidates because I place more importance on my votes and I have discipline. Can you understand the concept or do you think that it is mandatory to use all your votes? That kind of thinking makes it tough to defend democracy at times.
03 Sep 2008 at 11:33 pm | #
I get off right here questioning Berding’s motives. They are questionable always. He is no friend of the people and has never proven himself to be one.
I am using no fantasy numbers, and NO WONDER Berding and Laketa Cole are SCARED of proportional representation. Neither one of them had support of the majority of the community. Berding had 38% and some change, and Cole had 40% and some change of the votes cast, hardly representative or supported by the majority, since we are talking MAJORITY RULES, and about DEMOCRACY. They don’t qualify.
Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
Notice number 4 from “The American Heritage” dictionary. When a minority, in practice, elects a majority of the power, this is NOT democracy. Glad i could clear that up for you and read you a definition out of a dictionary. I think we solved that disagreement, no?
Not sure where your 12% comes from. The range of support from 2007 is 37%-44% of 6 members, and only 3 got over 50.9% (Qualls, Cranley, and Crowley). Berding was second lowest with 38% and some change. I can see why he wants to throw districts in the mix and make this a vote of proportional representation against districts, because districts terrify such an unpopular politician.
This is one city council, not two branches. What 5 districts, 4 at-large seats ensures that the largest voting block in the city wins 4 seats out of 9 off the bat, and likely one or two more, still leaving smaller voting blocks with no representation, still leaving neighborhoods with little representation. This is HARDLY what anyone, besides Berding, in Cincinnati wants. This plan has been shot down before also and is not new.
The “Founding Fathers” also determined that black people were only 3/5 a human being, that only white males with property could vote, and the Senate was NOT ELECTED, so your concepts are based on adaptations of those principles, if you really want to get historical and traditional on me. Change is the only constant guarantee. The question is: do we change for the better and support proportional represenation, and a fairer reflection of the people? Or do we swallow Berding’s lame-duck plan of maintaining corporate and business control of Cincinnati.
I refuse to hide behind pseudonyms on here. I am proud of my statements and state them here publicly. I welcome public debate, and would LOVE to face Berding on a stage in a debate. I would eat that man up, as I would you, Dieterschmied.
04 Sep 2008 at 12:05 am | #
.
Regardless, we feel there should be staggered terms !
Also, a two year term where one of those years is basically re-election campaigning is non-productive.
Districting in judicial races has resulted in disproportionate representation of minorities in the court-house, Appeals court and Ohio Supreme court. There is not one minority on Appeals or State Supreme.
Muni-court is district and the districts are gerrymandered to where only two district could a minority get elected. Two out of seven. Muni is training ground for all other courts, thus, no minority representation.
Face it, this is a partisan gimmick to off-balance democratic rule in the city, PERIOD !
Berding has the Bengal’s interest more in mind than the citizens on this one.
.
04 Sep 2008 at 06:23 am | #
Loenzo!
I am only going to respond to one of your questions because I feel like I am arguing with some illiterate drunk.
First reread what I wrote a few times!
http://media.www.newsrecord.org/media/storage/paper693/news/2007/11/07/News/Cincinnati.Voters.ReElect.City.Council-3084206.shtmlThe population of Cincinnati is approximately 332,252 citizens. 332,252 divided by 32,663 = 10.2 %. This was from the last election which was lighter than usual.
Your narrow little mind came up with the following :
Given the actual numbers that I have presented, just how is your PR system going to meet YOUR requirements for a democratic system in Cincinnati?
You, Sir, are a blithering idiot!
04 Sep 2008 at 03:23 pm | #
I thank you for the kind words, for I know as someone seasoned at debate that when your opponent starts attacking your character, it is because you have won the debate. Also, first they ignore you (we are beyond being ignored), then they attack you, next we win.
The percentages I discuss are of those who voted, not of the entire population based on census. If we counted those who never vote, majorities would never happen in our nation, considering historically 35% didn’t even register prior to this year. Based on the voter database, supplied by our keeper of records, the Board of Elections from July 2008, there are 160,000 registered voters (roughly) in Cincinnati. I think I will accept their numbers over yours. Also, in 2007, there were 61,503 ballots cast, or voters who showed up to vote. That is out of 212,303 registered voters. We don’t count majority based on who was able to show up, but on who does show up to vote. So your definition of majority conveniently is misleading.
The percentages are avaialable and I am happy to provide the spreadsheet of actual data.
With proportional representation, every 10% of the voters will win one seat, and when you add up 50%, they will win five seats and produce a truly representative majority on city council.
This is about fair and full representation of all the people, not just 44% of the people of Cincinnati controlling 66.6% of the representation as the current system produces.
If anyone would like to look at hard data, please, feel free to email me and look beyond the misleading statements provided by opponents here:
04 Sep 2008 at 09:35 pm | #
AL #13:Also, first they ignore you (we are beyond being ignored), then they attack you, next we win.
Don’t rush your victory, I’m still ignoring you.
05 Sep 2008 at 07:05 am | #
JFD, please ignore that question on your ballot. Just go ahead and ignore it by skipping it when you vote. That works fine for our movement. As i said, we are beyond being ignored.
05 Sep 2008 at 08:10 am | #
Lorenzo!
You are too much. First you say that you accept that there are 160,000 registered voters than you say there are 212,303 registered voters. What is it?
The definition of majority is not misleading but your use of the word is.
You are so hung up on using PR to get your people elected that you miss the elephant in the room. You say that you don’t care about those that don’t show up to vote, but in fact they are the majority. You and those in power have been unable to get those in the majority to play. When we have a system that claims that it is for and by the people and that majority rules and you can’t get the majority to play in your system, then it would follow that the system lacks credibility and it is not worthy of confidence.
I would suggest that you deal with getting a system in which the people can have confidence rather that play marginal games to tilt the playing field. PR when compared with the present system is nothing more than a distraction. Even is we were to concede that PR is better than the present system, the improvement is insignificant at best. It is still only a variation of the present at-large system and the difference will not be recognized by almost all.
To your offer of “hard data” , it does not exist! Any data would be affected by innumerable variables of different degrees. The world does not offer laboratory conditions in which exact scientific methodology can be employed. The best that you can get is by keeping it simple and honest and when the unforeseen or sporadic offending human elements enter to mess it up, you try to recognize the existence of the human offending elements and continue on keeping it simple and honest and hope the offending human elements disappear. If the offending human elements endure, we might want to deal with them as a last resort.
05 Sep 2008 at 05:04 pm | #
I am quoting records. In 2007, there were 220,000 (roughly) voters. In 2008, as of two months ago, there are 160,000 voters in Cincinnati. Don’t question me, question the board of elections and official results from the City of Cincinnati!
Proportional representation is a system that produces high participation (10%-15% increase in voter turnout). In research from Cambridge, 80% of voters elect their first or second choice. Also, proportional representation is a system that allows a diversity of candidates to participate and compete, so we won’t stifle diversity of choice for voters, as districts would introducing the concept of spoilers into the mix; in other words, if you have two leftists running, a democrat and liberal charterite, if you divide the voting block of the left in a majority leftist district, the conservative can win. Let’s say specifically that 60% are leftist, and 40% vote Republican. If the vote is split as such: 35% democrat, 25% liberal Charterite, then the Republican wins even though the majority preferred someone else! This is not a problem in proportional representation, as each would receive a proportional size of the representation.
It is not that i don’t care… it is that they don’t participate in the process, and i wouldn’t ever support forcing people to participate in a process they do not wish to participate in. Another reform that increases voter participation is same-day voter registration, where you can register on election day to vote. I support this, so here I am supporting the only two reforms that guarantee greater voter participation, or getting more of those who don’t care to show up, yet you are opposing the most significant reform: Proportional Representation.
So who is it that doesn’t care that they don’t participate? I would say it is definitely not myself.
05 Sep 2008 at 08:48 pm | #
AL{
I can ignore you all day long; however I pay very close attention to what’s on my ballot; and PR still gets a big NO vote.
AL{
So ignorance is really all the PR initiative has going for it? Enough said, I’m still voting NO.
08 Sep 2008 at 04:15 pm | #
@dietershmied: And I would like to hear what Smitherman and the rest of his followers mean when they refer to the present system as “winner takes all”. I have asked this question before and it has never been answered.
9x is a pretty extreme form of winner-take-all because one party, slate or faction can win as many as all nine seats even though they represent 50% or even less than 50% of the voters. The results are rarely that extreme, but they are just as rarely proportional to the views of the voters. Hence the name, “winner-take all”.
The name “proportional representation” is just as easy to understand. If your party or slate has the support of 50% of the voters, it gets four or five seats, not seven or even all nine. If your party or slate is support by 10% of the voters, it gets one seat, not zero. The majority gets the right of decision while minorities get the right of representation. What’s not to like about this?
08 Sep 2008 at 04:38 pm | #
How PR, and not Districts, Leads to More Accountability
Let’s say there exist voters who maintains interest “X,” and further let’s imagine they make up 15% of the City’s voting population. However, let’s imagine that this 15% is spread out through all the proposed districts. 15% of an interest is worthy of representation through one seat on Council. But, split between all Berding’s districts, this profile “X” would be a more extreme minority in each district due to being split.
Under PR, that 15% could get their representation on Council. And it is accountable because if the candidate betrays that trust, that 15% will not re-elect him or her.
08 Sep 2008 at 07:57 pm | #
Can we quote you, Dean of Cincinnati, as a supporter of proportional representation? We would love to have you and the Beacon as endorsers on this campaign moving forward. I would also love to schedule a meeting if necessary to discuss the proposal and endorsement.
08 Sep 2008 at 08:43 pm | #
Bob Richard!
Thank you for the explanation of “winner takes all”. I cannot in anyway say that I regret not knowing that. Not only is the example hypothetical, the probability of that scenario is rare to zero. And if it did happen, would it be the end of the world.
Do those who are obviously paranoid ever consider the many aspects of our voting system that are less than ideal? For instance, does anyone care about the large number of losers in every election? Fifty percent plus one is all that is needed to win, but does anyone care about the ones that did not win and according to the theory of PR-promoters, fifty percent minus one don’t get represented. And they are worried about maybe 10 percent not being decision makers? In either case, So What? Both sides have to play by the rules that have been setup and the conditions are the same for both sides.
You ask “What’s not to like about this? Actually there are a lot of thing that I can not like about any system, but there are many thing that are more important. None of the systems discussed are perfect.
It seems that the PR people’s desire is to have every group to have their own representative and that just isn’t ever going to happen.
Arguing over PR is actually wasted effort because it really has the big faults of the present system. Jason talks about PR being accountable when he writes “Under PR, that 15% could get their representation on Council. And it is accountable because if the candidate betrays that trust, that 15% will not re-elect him or her.” The reality is that these candidates get elected and get this egocentric city-hall fever a few month after they take office and they hide behind the other eight council members. Getting the one candidate through the fantasy land example given does not assure accountability nor does it assure that your candidate will keep his word or even be concerned about the support because the chances of duplicating the results a second time are rare.
And when your special candidate is elected he has the term of office to get name recognition, which is another problem with both the present system and PR. Once the candidate has name recognition and does a mediocre job, he no longer need to be accountable to the PR gift.
Districts eliminate the high cost of name recognition and districts make it so much easier to communicate with the representative and gives the citizen more power to be able to challenge the district representative and even get him thrown out of office. Those are real actual and significant changes not just some dream when all of the conditions just fit together. You can take the changes offered by districts to the bank.
While Berding’s plan is better than what we have now, it dilutes the power of the people somewhat by making it a hybrid. I know why he wants a hybrid. It is because, like the founding fathers having both congress and the senate, he doesn’t trust the citizenry. And he is probably right not to trust the people. Berding’s plan could be an easier implementation but I doubt if he knows it.
I saw Berding on channel 12’s Newsmaker show Sunday discussing PR with some proponent of PR; Because I tuned it late, I did not get his name. There were some interesting points about there being only one city in the US that uses PR and that was not what I was led to believe earlier. Implementation of the system is going to be expensive and take some years. All of this is a poster case of convictions being a greater threat to truth than ignorance. We need change not just some window dressing.
Again thank for the definition of “winner takes all”. The next person that throws it at me , I think I’ll put it where the sun doesn’t shine.
09 Sep 2008 at 01:32 am | #
Dieterschmied is again inaccurate. Six members on city council right now were elected with less than 50% + 1 vote. That’s right, 6 members. The example Bob Richard cited is exactly what happens in Cincinnati politics using the winner-take-all 9X system.
You can watch the news broadcast from Channel 12 here:
http://www.local12.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=33060@video.wkrc.com&navCatId=86
Implementation of the system, and the figures cited by Berding are not accurate. We can’t get software by next year’s election, and the estimates stated by Sally Krisel were not well researched when I called and asked her. Hart did not do a thorough analysis and threw out a figure off the top of their head.
The voters will decide if better representation is worth an investment. For many of us, the price of truly democratic representation is priceless.
The “Founding Fathers” created checks and balances in two houses, not two systems in each house to elect members. Also, proportional representation wasn’t invented for another 100 years after our revolution took place. Other democracies have used it who have had their revolutions in the more modern era.
What the Founding Fathers did determine, aside from African Americans being 3/5 a human being, and only white males with property being able to vote, not to mention having Senators appointed and not elected in direct elections, as well as having an electoral college, instead of the people choosing our president, was pretty good for their time. This is the modern era, and democracy needs to evolve if it intends to last and work well for the people.
We look forward to hearing from the majority of the people on November 4th. We hope others will support the proposal with us and help us make Cincinnati a city with better leadership for the future.
09 Sep 2008 at 08:03 am | #
Dieterschmied is not inaccurate!
Dieterschmied presented a basic tenet of democratic voting and was not referring to a unique situation or race. Majority means 50% plus one or more votes. What is so difficult to understand that?
I played the Dan Hurley show that was reached through the link provided by Anthony Lorenzo and I saw some interesting points. One is that Dan Hurley is for PR although he never said it. I would like to hear Hurley’s comment on my observation because I think Hurley is an honest person and would tell the truth.
I saw Berding offer arguments that wasn’t just the same old tired rhetoric that we have come to hear from Lorenzo. Berding actually came up with some subtle points that I never heard before and I have been listening to this PR crap since the issue was discussed at public hearing years ago.
Lorenzo and Company keep repeating scenarios that really do not reflect reality or life experiences. It is wishful thinking or dreaming. While I disagree with Berding over the form of districts that he proposes, he makes a far better argument than Lorenzo. In fact, with a simple modification, I could get behind Berding. That modification is that there be either eight or sixteen districts and whatever he comes up with at-large district and five is good. In fact, I believe Berding’s system has the potential to be better than what I have been proposing. My reasons for more districts is to arrive at a district size where an individual can have a meaningful chance of being heard without having to spend thousands of dollars campaigning. And it will allow all of us to hear ideas that today are never heard because individual ideas are lost in the sea.
09 Sep 2008 at 08:20 am | #
With reference to my last post, I wish to edit one point. I would not support more than five at-large seats in Berdings district plan. It is important that the general people have more power than the elite who would make up the at-large seats. I would think the ratio of 4:16 would be preferable to 4:5.
09 Sep 2008 at 09:07 am | #
Dieterschmied: Seems like you and Berding might be closer than we imagine.
That is a telling point and one I have suspected for a while.
9X doesn’t produce majority winners. I have demonstrated that with previous election data. Proportionality produces a 5 member voting block who is clearly the FAVORITE of a majority, or 50%, of the voters, and thus ensures true majority rule.
Candidates currently have to raise 100’s of thousands of dollars, not thousands of dollars. Candidates in proportional representation don’t need to campaign citywide, and therefore costs would not only decrease, but candidates would realize that no amount of money can buy a first choice vote; that kind of trust with voters can’t be bought with high glossy, full color mailers and television ads. It has to be earned.
Dan Hurley hardly provided equal time, or equal time for me to respond to Berdings points during the discussion, and many times cut off the advocate for Proportional Represenation (myself). Berding is a seasoned opponent and an worthy one. I look forward to debating him more.
The fact of the matter is, Berding’s plan isn’t mutually exclusive to proportional representation. The two could co-exist. In fact any system with multiple at-large seats could still have proportional represenation to determine a fairer sample of the people, though the plan on the table is the best.
09 Sep 2008 at 04:22 pm | #
Your first sentence implies that I might have some connection with Berding. I have never ever spoke, met or even seen Berding in person. I didn’t know of his plan until someone suggested that I should get with Berding on this blog.
Even though the PR and districts are not mutually exclusive, I am against anything that might confuse the voters or give voters a reason to suspect the motives behind the rules.
My concern over having any at-large districts is that they require too much money. I am now trying to find a way that there could be four at-large seats without having to incur the costs inherent to at-large campaigning. First of all we have to determine why we have at-large candidates in the first place. I know some of the obvious reasons but there are more. Even with the all-district plan that I promote, I am concerned with the lack of knowledge and training of the council members past, present and future. We could have done just as well as the present system by having a lottery of any who are interested in serving on council and I am not trying to be sarcastic.
For instance, it might be better to have the at-large members to be chosen by the district members after the general election. The next question is where we get those from whom they are to choose.
The fact is that I am not totally sold on democracy in the first place. I like the founding fathers, Churchill and Hitler do not trust the citizenry to do the right thing. I would prefer to use democracy as a check to a more efficient system that would probably get out of hand in time. Democracy allows the people to feel like they are in charge and if there was not this religious-like belief, the leader would have to have standing armies and a long list of recipients of favors to maintain their support; hmmm, I guess we have already got that don’t we?
09 Sep 2008 at 08:18 pm | #
Dieterschmied: You just lost 3 cool points with me.
09 Sep 2008 at 08:50 pm | #
Shall we now name Deiter, the new dictator? I think not; Hitler might be a better choice.
09 Sep 2008 at 09:04 pm | #
dieterschmied @22: Districts eliminate the high cost of name recognition and districts make it so much easier to communicate with the representative and gives the citizen more power to be able to challenge the district representative and even get him thrown out of office.
What district elections really do is make city government even more of a pork barrel circus than it would be otherwise. Every council member competes against every other council member to get government money spent in her/his district.
In addition, sometimes voters’ interests (philosophical, economic, racial, you name it) line up with district boundaries, but often they don’t. If the folks who agree with you on the issues are spread out all over town—or gerrymandered into several districts—then your vote can be useless. PR makes gerrymandering much harder to accomplish; in Cincinnati’s case, the current PR proposal eliminates it altogether.
Gerrymandering is one of the main things that entrenches incumbents in office. So how is that single-member districts give voters more control?
As for the cost of campaigning, the empirical evidence doesn’t support dieterschmied on this; legislative candidates in single-member districts and multi-member districts spend about the same. In PR elections, you can target your message to your natural constituencies. You don’t have to reach everybody. Besides, most channels of communication in a city the size of Cincinnati are city-wide anyway.
Finally, as a voter, I have more contact with, can communicate much better with, and ultimately have more control over, a representative who agrees with me and who I helped elect than I do a representative who happens to live down the street from me—and may well have voted against.
10 Sep 2008 at 05:23 am | #
I saw Newsmakers Sunday and Mr. Lorenzo makes the same points here: that in his opinion PR is superior to 9X or districts as it promotes tokenism.
Mr. Lorenzo thinks the only way to be represented by elected officeholders is to have the candidate he votes for win. This is absurd.
About 1/2 of voters every 4 years fail to have their candidate elected President, but the President is expected to represent all citizens, not just the voters who elected him or even all voters.
Mr. Lorenzo’s attitude toward representation is childish at best.
Also: it is entirely possible that a voters entire ballot will be cast aside if that voter’s rank-ordered choices include non-viable candidates. Thus even under PR some voters won’t be “represented.”
Finally: Mr. Lorenzo commits a classic mistake of claiming “a minority of voters can elect a majority of council members.” Berding receiving “38 percent” of the votes cast doesn’t disqualify the fact that, as a candidate, he received enough single votes to be elected.
“Total votes cast” is only, I repeat, only meaningful for determining the average number of votes cast BY EACH VOTER. It is not necessarily a reflection of preference.
If only 9 votes are cast, then each “winner” received 11% of the votes cast; this hardly means a “minority” of voters elected the “majority” of councilmembers.
One the hand it’s good that Smitherman sends out surrogates to argue his cases; on the other it’s another example of Smitherman’s cowardice in the face of media scrutiny. He should argue this case in the Enquirer’s board room, not on a local Sunday morning talk show few people watch.
10 Sep 2008 at 08:09 am | #
JFD!
Why would you not name me a founding father or Churchill, as they all had equal billing in my post?
What this indicates is that you are unable to accept other points of view unless you have a liking for the person who presents them. In other words, you have prejudices that eliminate you from considering views that may possibly help you in life and/or allow you to better understand others. I would think that you would do well in the present Whitehouse.
Perhaps if we opened our minds we would not be having such a problem with the subject of this thread instead it seems that people are trying to control so they can better force their beliefs on others through voting manipulations.
It seems that you all have too many convictions that get in the way of seeking truth.
10 Sep 2008 at 09:19 am | #
I have heard the pork barrel argument and I suppose it can happen because it happens in the present system and will probably happen in PR as well. That is one reason for having at-large council members to assist in reducing this effect. In other words, it happens in all systems. I think it has something to do with greed and survival of the fittest. I could argue that equal competing districts could keep better control of this problem because comparisons of costs and benefits which could be more easily tabulated and discovered.
Here we go again! This is hogwash! Why do you keep bringing up gerrymandering when there is a simple solution for it if there is a willingness to give up stealth control desires that are present but clouded by denials.
Show me this empirical evidence! This just simply defies logic.
I think this paragraph says volumes. He wants “control over” (others)! He does not consider the wants of others who disagree with him. What is the difference between “Bob Richard’s Democracy” and Mob Rule?
I now see another benefit of districts. All to often we have these pesky little people like Bob that have an agenda and generally work behind the scenes to get their way with their special interests. Most of us would like to not even notice government and some have held that the best government is one that you don’t know is there. At-large plans such as we have today and will have with PR allow so much to happen unnoticed until it is claimed by the bureaucrats as being too late to do any different. People don’t sound any alarm because they feel their voice will not be heard and they don’t know where to be heard. Districts reduce that frustration that is justifiably felt. Just like many issues of seemly minor consequence appear on this blog, seemingly minor issues will be discovered by at least someone in a district and it will more probably surface in a district environment where is would be lost in an at-large environment. When an issue is raised and it has merit, there will be others that are informed who have had the same concerns but were hesitant to say anything in a large at-large environment and from there discussion and interaction takes place. Some call it community. Community has been lost in Cincinnati for years and districts can return it too a degree better that divisive at-large systems such as the current system and PR.
10 Sep 2008 at 11:04 am | #
Bob Richard @30: As for the cost of campaigning, the empirical evidence doesn’t support dieterschmied on this; legislative candidates in single-member districts and multi-member districts spend about the same.
dieterschmied @33: Show me this empirical evidence! This just simply defies logic.
See here:
http://www.fairvote.org/library/money/seats_costs.htm
And here:
http://www.fairvote.org/library/money/vermontcosts.htm
10 Sep 2008 at 01:06 pm | #
Better Ballot Cincinnati is a separate entity from the NAACP. We don’t speak for the NAACP, Progressive Action Network, the Southwest Ohio Green Party, the Libertarians, or COAST. We also don’t speak for Marian Spencer, Bobbie Sterne, Bill Woods, or any other prominent individuals from the community nor share all their views. We have but one issue: fairer representation for the Cincinnati community on city council using proportional representation. Beyond that, they speak for themselves.
Possibilities and potentials are an interesting thing to consider. Yet I prefer to deal in reality, and what happens. What happens in proportional representation is that 80% of the voters elect their first or second choice. That is far cry over 38% for Berding’s election.
Our system ensures your favorite wins, that your vote counts, and that there is a lower ballot spoilage rate where voters make errors. We had 0.27% spoiled in 2007 from voter errors. Proportional representation had less than 0.1% errors made by voters. I prefer to deal in hard data.
10 Sep 2008 at 01:09 pm | #
re: #34
Boy you had to search for that reference. I called fairvote.org in Mayland and wanted to know if they were saying that district campaigning is more expensive than at-large. She didn’t think that that is what they were saying but she would look for additional information or articles and send them to me. They have stated a few qualifications that I suppose you ignored.
I also googled “ cost of campaigning districts at-large “ and found a whole lot of sites that shoots down your claims. In fact I found this little gem as number 1: http://extras.insidebayarea.com/features/hayward-diversity/District_Elections_for_City_Council.ppt
In fact the NAACP ought to look at it and then justify how the Cincinnati Branch can be in support of PR.
There are
10 Sep 2008 at 01:13 pm | #
Dieterschmied:
Mob rule, sometimes a negative term applied to democracy by some, is the ideal in our nation. We have a representative republic, though the ballot initiative/referendum process is truly democratic. Neither our nation, nor proportional representation, can be called “mob rule.” The largest voting block, hardly a majority in many cases, determines who our leaders are. Only in head to head competitions with two choices can a majority be determined in our current voting systems. Anyone else is discarded as a spoiler, or a wasted vote, by our current mainstream system.
How fair is it in a “representative” republic to not even have a choice? More choices correlates with greater voter participation. We rank very low in the world on voter turnout, and proportional representation will allow us to continue to have a greater diversity of choices to choose from, unlike districts which will stifle diversity and does often.
You are correct that our movement seeks to elect better representation that matches the interests of the people. You are correct that this is a goal of this movement. We are proud to fight for better representation on city council and will continue to do so.
The truth is, Berding’s plan could work with proportional representation (5 districts, 4 at large). The two aren’t mutually exclusive. And if the voters desire that, they can have BOTH. We want a better voting system that produces better representation. And this is what is on the table right now, not districts.
10 Sep 2008 at 01:19 pm | #
I would point out that the choice in November is between the current 9x system and PR. I was in Cincinnati way back in 1991 when PR was last on the ballot. Some people opposed PR because they said they wanted to get districts. So, 17 years later, here we are—and the same argument is being raised.
I hope people take the saying to heart that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I can’t imagine why anyone who likes districts would think 9x is better than PR. PR reduces the amount of money a candidate will need to spend to win because they can win with a smaller number of votes that can come from door-knocking. PR tends to represent neighborhoods across a city because people’s top rankings are usually for people they trust, usually from direct experience.
As to PR being “divisive,” the evidence strongly disputes that claim. To be sure, it represents a broader spectrum of views and interests, but that doesn’t mean those representatives are divisive. Most people want representatives who can get things done to make life better in Cincinnati—safe streets, good schools, reasonable taxes, good conditions for well-paying jobs, etc. They don’t want representatives who are all steam and no fire.
For some history on how PR has worked in Cincinnati and other cities, including a direct discussion on how councils operated, see:
http://www.fairvote.org/library/history/true_experiences.htm
Note that it’s from a whole book on the subject. PR is NOT an untested idea.
10 Sep 2008 at 01:53 pm | #
dieterschmied @ #34: In fact I found this little gem as number 1: http://extras.insidebayarea.com/features/hayward-diversity/District_Elections_for_City_Council.ppt
This “gem” mentions cost of campaigning exactly once (3rd slide) and includes zero evidence to back up the claim. A more general point on this document: it doesn’t include PR as an option. It’s strictly a comparison of districts versus vote-for-N.
Like dieterschmied, I have done repeated Google searches on this question. There are indeed lots of Google hits restating dieterschmied’s supposition—it’s very common. The brief articles by FairVote are the only things I have found that are based on actual data.
11 Sep 2008 at 02:15 pm | #
Many costs in district versus at-large elections are identical. Some are reduced. If we are talking radio, or television ads, the costs are the same--it still costs X amount of dollars to advertise there. If we are talking mailers, obviously the cost is reduced, as the target audience is reduced.
But what you are NOT comparing is the reduction of costs in PR versus 9X, and proportional representation (PR) is what is on the ballot--NOT districts.
So let’s compare proportional representation and 9X. That’s what the decision is and what people need to consider. Districts have many flaws proportional representation doesn’t have. We have discussed this adequately in previous comments.
We are working on compiling data on the differences between what is spent in PR versus at large, as that is the change we are currently discussing. I am sure you will see it here soon.
11 Sep 2008 at 06:01 pm | #
I didn’t hear Dan Hurley state “Better Ballot Cincinnati” on Newsmakers, only NAACP.
The “minority electing a majority” argument is similarly flawed thusly:
If 4 of 9 voters under PR each pick the same candidate as “number 1,” that person is elected; thus by a minority.
I actually support PR, but flawed arguments are being used to sell it.
And what’s this I hear about Smitherman using the Gay community in this quest? Are they no longer “Racist White Gays”? Or is he simply reverting to his “by any means necessary” approach to get what he politically wants?
11 Sep 2008 at 06:23 pm | #
Wrong Tony!
I couldn’t care less about 9x versus pr campaign costs. We are arguing districts versus whatever option is out there. One of the main features of districts is that it can reduce campaign costs in almost every instance.
When you write: “Many costs in district versus at-large elections are identical.”, I can only agree that they can be, but probably won’t be. A marketing strategy for districts will or should be at a lesser cost than any at-large plan. A marketing strategy may even be different for each district,each candidate,each campaign. I can tell you for sure that a cost-effective campaign for districts will almost be had for far less money than at-large campaigns unless the campaign manager is an idiaot or the candidate has more money than sense.
11 Sep 2008 at 06:51 pm | #
The name of the organization I represent is Better Ballot for Cincinnati. We will have a Web Site up within a week. I have linked to it on all my comments and when it is up and running, you can read more information and see who all our endorsers are.
That being said, Christopher Smitherman, the elected president of the NAACP, and the NAACP, have endorsed proportional representation. I don’t speak for Mr. Smitherman, nor the NAACP, nor would I presume to. They and he are a separate entity entirely and have the right to their own opinion and the right to express it.
As for our position, we welcome support from any community, be they Republicans, Charterites, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, community councils, community leaders, African Americans, the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community, Feminists, Pro-choice groups, Pro-life groups, Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists, Jews, Muslems, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists… we don’t turn away support for our single issue: adoption and implementation of proportional representation in Cincinnati, and full, fair and equitable representation of every Cincinnati resident.
If 4 out of 9 voters in proportional representation vote for the same candidate, they will likely elect 3 candidates, not one. Four out of 9 candidates is roughly 44% of the voters, and yes, we would agree that 44% of the population deserves 44% of the representation. This is about what elects 6/9 representatives now, or 66% of the representatives on city council based on 2007 data. What you fear already exists in the current system, is a valid point and concern we share with you.
I have to say I was not happy that we received less time, that we weren’t allowed to respond equally to Berdings talking points, and that the full list of endorsers were not included (and only the NAACP was mentioned, though we have white republicans involved, white green party members involved, and white libertarians involved in the coalition, as well as the Progressive Action Network, whose racial make-up I am not aware of as of yet). I also sent some slides to Mr. Hurley to be used to describe the counting process… I was not allowed to present that information. We want the people to know what we are advocating and especially the phenomenal effects of this system.
I will be debating Councilman Berding or someone from the opposition at the following location. I encourage each of you to attend with your best questions and thank you for the discussion here:
Saturday September 27, 9am. 536 Linton St., Cincinnati, @ First Unitarian Universalist Church. This will be a long discussion, and we will get to your questions there.
11 Sep 2008 at 06:58 pm | #
Yes, Dieterschmied, your arguments certainly ring of probabilities and what you imagine the reduction of costs to be. What I am saying is the data doesn’t reflect a significant reduction in communities that use at-large and district elections in the same community. As i stated, the reduction is not in radio ads, newspaper ads, television ads, or ads on buses/billboards. These costs don’t change one bit with districts. How you can ignore that fact is something i can’t quite wrap my mind around. Sure, you need less mailers.
I am done with debating districts. If the people desire districts, they will happen. Right now, we are talking about what is generally excepted as one of the best voting methods in the world (Harvard, MIT endorse PR), which is not mutually exclusive of a mixed system that has been put on the table by Berding. If a system of 5/4 is introduced, we still need proportional representation for the 4 at-large seats. I have no position on districts, since it is not on the ballot, and our coalition is not endorsing that issue nor to oppose that issue at this time.
I am compiling data on what the cost differences are in Cambridge versus here. I will provide that data as soon as it is available to me.
11 Sep 2008 at 08:55 pm | #
Urbanists:
4/9 is 44% of the voting population, and in PR, they elect 4 seats, not 6, or 66%, or a clear majority of the voting power on city council. Electing 1/9 seats doesn’t translate into controlling council. This is only 11% of the representation, and 55% is necessary to pass new laws, budgets and so on.
What you will have in 50% + 5 voters (necessary to elect 5 seats in PR) is TRUE MAJORITY REPRESENTATION. This is a very sound argument. And not only will you have 5 seats decided by a majority, you will have the 5 best candidatetes, who are the 1st or 2nd choices of our community.
12 Sep 2008 at 05:22 am | #
Mr.Lorenzo: you cannot compel people to vote for more candidates than they choose. If 9 voters each only choose one first place candidate, then all candidates are elected and each by a minority.
Unless you actually propose compelling the number of candidates a voter casts a ballot for?
At the end of the day your argument remains flawed and advocating tokenism. Berding’s point on Newsmakers that Council used to have 4 Blacks under 9X is sound. It’s the quality of the candidates and their campaigns that determine electoral success.
Last time around you had Alicia termed out and in 3rd place for Mayor. You had retreads Winburn, Cooper & Malone. In 2005 you had nutjob “Racist White Gays cost me the election” Smitherman. And a host of third tiers.
When competent, qualified and viable candidates who happen to be Black run, they tend to be elected. Some, unfortunately, do not despite their qualifications, viability and competence. Such is political life.
But the tokenism and identity politics you advocate is a thin line away from racialism, which is a nice way of saying racism.
12 Sep 2008 at 11:51 am | #
This is not a system that elects people on the basis of race alone. It is just that such data is easier to track and analyze. What we see is racial minorities receive a fair share. What we also see is that women come closer to receiving a fair share. We are not just advocating for equitable representation of African Americans, but also women, and other political minorities.
Most of the data that exists is on women and racial groups, as census data doesn’t usually or often ask what your partisan views are, or what a citizen’s platform is. However, Cincinnati regularly elected a union person to city council when PR was used, not just African Americans. Each constituency in the community can elect a representative that shares their core interests, and the attempts to assume that many of those interests don’t overlap: that African Americans don’t care about clean air or water, better jobs, better education, is just ludicrous to me.
Unfortunately, i can’t post a file here or i would refute each of your statements with hard data. When our Web Site is completed, I intend to have lots of reports to ease your fears that this is just about African Americans getting equitable representation, as that is hardly the only result. Better candidates will be elected for each segment of the population. That is the result of PR the world over, and also in the 5 Ohio municipalities that used PR. Catholics were elected, Polish immigrants, union representatives, and other minority constituencies, as when i use the term minority I am not the one defining it as race. In fact, with current trends of census data, Cincinnati as a city is en route to Caucasians being a minority in the city limits. Funny how the opposition on here fails to note that. We still would like to see the FAVORITE CANDIDATE(S) of the African American community winning, not the least favorites. We are currently analyzing data of bullet voting and how many voters, and from what communities, elect their choices, and how many they elect. I have data on the effects in Cambridge and the historical makeup of their city council (having used the “Cincinnati Method” of PR for 67 years, surviving numerous attempts to repeal). If you would like to email me, , I am happy to provide that information to you.
The fact that none of the opposition here has ever emailed me is telling that you really are just opposed to this. I welcome some serious inquiries from the opposition to really understand why we support PR.
12 Sep 2008 at 12:00 pm | #
Urbanists:
I would agree that bullet voting, when you don’t like 9 in the current system, is not a bad strategy, so I would seek to compel nothing. I am not here to defend 9X. My position is obviously it doesn’t work well, doesn’t elect the best people, doesn’t ensure everyone’s vote is equal, ensures party bosses maintain their control of council, and ensures those connected to business/corporate money can continue to win and get re-elected.
What I am saying is proportional representation, through the process of ranking candidates ensures that each voters’ vote is EQUAL. PR ensures that your vote will count to elect your favorite. PR ensures that, based on the votes, the majority of the council is elected by a majority of first choices, or favorites, of the commUNITY. PR ensures greater voter participation: 62% average turnout compared to dismal 28% in 2007. PR makes it so money can’t buy the election, as voters aren’t giving up their first choice support to someone who sends them 15 glossy, full-color mailers or advertises during their favorite TV show, but who they trust, not to mention they only need to appeal to 10-20% of the voters similar to a district system only in that the target audience is smaller, though voters anywhere in the city can organize themselves into districts without politicians gerrymandering the districts to death. But again, I am advocating a voting system to fix current problems, and if districts were on the table, i would still be advocating a better election process to make districts better. But districts ARE NOT ON THE TABLE NOVEMBER 4th, just Issue #8, and only a Yes vote on that will change anything.
PR ensures party bosses don’t get to pick replacements and then incumbents are re-elected in 9X. This happens often, much more than most people think in our research. Activists like Roxanne Qualls need a party’s endorsement to win on their third attempt, and lose running as an independent or without the Democratic Party boss’s endorsement in town. PR allows her to organize her 10% of support and win. We advocate a system that allows every significant voting block to have their favorite on city council.