Thursday, October 09, 2008

Proportional Representation:  Christopher Smitherman v. Jeff Berding

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

This morning, Impact Cincinnati on 91.7 FM surprised Jeff Berding with the chance to debate Christopher Smitherman on the radio about Proportional Representation.  Listen to a calm Smitherman rationally discuss PR while a frantic Berding raises his voice over fear of losing his job!

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

PR fan says:
09 Oct 2008  at  07:26 pm | #

Note that Berding completely misrepresents how the ballot-count works—twice. Interesting that he just lost his complaint against Better Ballot for Cincinnati because every vote in fact DOES count with PR. 

He’s also putting out literature that says Roxanne Qualls is against Issue 8, which is false. How low will Issue 8 opponents stoop?

JFD says:
11 Oct 2008  at  07:58 am | #

Calm and wrong, isn’t as good as loud and right!

says:
11 Oct 2008  at  10:28 am | #

Dean!

I listened to the audio and find your assessment to being biased to the extent that I find you care nothing about fairness in presenting the facts to your readers.

There was nothing frantic about Berding’s statements. Instead, Berding stated his position with authority and directness that is easier when you take a position that is supported with logic.

Contrary to your assessment, I found the last minutes of Smitherman’s arguments to be somewhat frantic. He fell back on the tired and insignificant arguments such as “it worked before” and “ they use it in Cambridge” .

Dean, your actions in this instance negatively affect your credibility and the credibility of your blob.

One thing came up in these interchanges that hasn’t been mentioned very often in these discussion and that is the parliamentarian method, which I think is worthy of discussion.

Jones says:
11 Oct 2008  at  06:44 pm | #

I’ve listened to this twice to see if I could truly pick up on Dean’s rationale. It simply isn’t there.

As for Smitherman, I’ve got some breaking news for him:  What works in Cambridge isn’t necessarily going to work in Cincinnati. People in Cincy have a different tradition base & different thinking.

Oh, BTW, I believe I received some Issue 8 lit in the mail, where the Cincinnati Beacon is endorsing the measure. I had to laugh.

I mailed the absentee ballot on Thursday & voted no to Issue 8.

Dean’s shot himself in the foot on street cred here. This isn’t the time to be flipping with voters. Everyone is on bullsh#t overload right now & this crap doesn’t help in establishing the basic truth.

cincysuz says:
11 Oct 2008  at  08:09 pm | #

There’s no room in the NAACP for a difference of opinion. That’s scary. Like a dictatorship. Inconceivable that any of the membership could possibly have a contrary opinion and not risk becoming the target of character assassinationn a has happened time and again. Strangely, most of these issues that instigate such passion have nothing remotely to do with the NAACP mission. The president brags that he’s returned the membership dues of Berding because they disagree. That says it all. Nothing less than rubber stamping is tolerated. I’ve been told to go to the meetings. Why would anyone that’s an independent thinker, ever consider joining an organization that dictates exactly what to think. You can already get that at the Sunday morning church sermon.

Red light cameras--which I am against and will vote against--have nothing to do with race or class. We don’t even know where they will be located. They could just as likely be in Kenwood or Hyde Park. After all, lest you forget, really poor people are still on the bus or the bike or on foot. (Maybe putting some effort into getting them transportation would be a better use of the NAACP’s time)Anyone driving a car has to be able to afford the vehicle, the upkeep, fuel, insurance, registration, maybe parking, etc. It’s an even playing field except that the ticket will hurt privileged people less than those that don’t have a lot of money. Same with every other expense. But I’ll vote against it. Not because it’s a scheme to get money from black people, but because it’s flawed. Now if it passes, oh well. I lost on an issue that’s not earth shattering. I’ll avoid those intersections that have cameras. Not worth having a stroke over.

Ditto for Proportional Representation. Not worth going ballistic. Now if Berding was fighting against school lunches, health care for kids, or a myriad of issues that actually affect poor and black people, it’s time to get up in arms. Sending back his dues because he isn’t supportive of an issue that may sometime in the future give the NAACP president another shot at a city council seat is truly petty and a clear abuse of power.

These are strange times. Strange times indeed. There are agendas, that’s for sure.

says:
12 Oct 2008  at  12:35 pm | #

What works in Cambridge isn’t necessarily going to work in Cincinnati. People in Cincy have a different tradition base & different thinking.

Jones, your comments make me laugh. PR worked in Cincinnati in the past and it is a part of our tradition base. PR works in others cities around the world and yes it is still working for the people in Cambridge. They didn’t get rid of their system out of fear of electing a black mayor like Cincinnati did.

What exactly is the different thinking you are referring to? Have you been to Cambridge and done some polling? Have you done polling in Cincinnati? Are you saying the Cincinnati voters can’t figure out how to rank their candidates in order? I’m trying to pick up on your rationale. Please explain your thinking here.

cincysuz, if you did bother to go to a NAACP meeting you would see that members don’t always agree on everything and that things are discussed and then voted on. I’ve never seen anyone’s character assassinated at a meeting. (Funny, that you of all people would accuse someone of that.) The local NAACP is a democratic membership-driven organization. That’s why it has been so successful and continues to grow.

Jeff Berding has consistently opposed the local NAACP on every major issue. Smitherman sent him a message that the membership isn’t fooled by him just because he can write a big check.

Red light cameras have to do with civil liberties, public safety and the city budget. Kenwood isn’t in the city. If you think you know what is the best use of time for the NAACP it would be a better use of your time to go to a meeting and make a proposal instead of disparaging the membership from behind your keyboard.

Berding was against health and human service funding while the NAACP supported it. Berding supports corporate welfare deals for his big campaign contributors. Berding is for Cecil Thomas’ anti-marijuana ordinance which has disproportionately locked black men up and given them a criminal record. Berding supported the regressive jail tax. Berding is opposed to issue 7 and 8. Berding pushed a bad Bengal stadium deal on the taxpayers and his corporate agenda is in opposition to goals of the NAACP.

This is his record, it is not a personal attack. What he does in his personal life is his business.

cincysuz says:
12 Oct 2008  at  06:45 pm | #

President Jeffre - As the NAACP spokesperson (curious, I don’t find you or the Dean listed as officers or on the executive board--guess you hold unofficial positions) I’ve searched the NAACP site for position and issue information and can’t find any besides PR and red light cameras. I don’t see a word about the anti-marijuana ordinance or many of the other things that you claim are supported by the NAACP. Berding’s no liberal radical and not my kind of Democrat. But then his record is not as bad as some Republicans that the NAACP and you embrace, like Chris Finney, Tom Brinkman, Steve Chabot. Don’t know if their dues have been returned but if that’s the way the NAACP operates--returning dues to those that disagree--Finney, Brinkman and Chabot’s should have been marked “return to sender” post haste. I even heard, but don’t know if it’s true, that the NAACP passed up many qualified local African American attorneys and is using Finney’s services--of all people!

says:
12 Oct 2008  at  08:44 pm | #

Private cincysuz- PR and Red Lights will be on the ballot. Stop hijacking the threads with nonsense.

cincysuz says:
13 Oct 2008  at  06:14 am | #

That’s always your response when you’re slapped in the face with truth and logic. Everything I said made perfect sense. Instead of your usual puffed up pontifications, why not just respond to the points I made.

Jones says:
13 Oct 2008  at  06:47 pm | #

Have you been to Cambridge and done some polling?

Jeffre, as a matter of fact, I arrived back from Cambridge today. No need to do “polling”, just had a fabulous time.

And, I’m soooo glad my comments make you laugh. This bullsh$t doesn’t support your rationale or the Dean’s.  Now, that’s a real laugh.

What worked in Cincinnati before doesn’t necessarily mean it will work today. Yes, Jeffre, Cincinnati voters are very smart. Yes, they know who to put their candidates in ranking order. Today, it’s known as bulleting your ballot, & it works.

I always get a big laugh out of your thinking, Jeffre. I guess that’s why you’re still stuck where you are.

says:
13 Oct 2008  at  07:16 pm | #

Jones, I’m glad you had a fabulous time. Now please tell us what exactly is the different thinking you are referring to?
And what does that have to do with what voting systems are used?

What worked in Cincinnati before doesn’t necessarily mean it will work today.

What do you mean it won’t work today? Won’t work for whom? I think the BOE can handle PR and the voters can handle PR, so please explain. BTW, I’m not stuck anywhere silly and I’m glad we make each other laugh.