It's right to warn that PR will face "an onslaught of repeal efforts from the get-go" like in the 20th century, perhaps starting with "mixed" initial reviews of the new system, sponsored by those who lose power and influence in the change to PR. The dominant major party loses seats on the council, and therefore power, and the second major party, by definition, isn't powerful enough to stop repeal (or may support repeal, particularly if notable local groups begin to act like a proliferation of parties and undercut the #2 party). The real problem won't be whatever the mixed reviews complain about. It'll be that Portland's council will be, for the time being, an island of proportionality in a political world of disproportionality that benefits only the two major parties, where plurality elections for single-seat assembly districts are accepted without a second thought.
The only way to protect Portland's expanded and more proportional council is to (1) sell the broader public on those same goals for the Multnomah County commission, for other Oregon cities and counties, and then for the state legislature, and (2) further expand the Portland council and make it even more fully proportional. In other words, the only defense is an effective offense that attacks disproportionality in amenable venues, one by one, until eventually it's PR that is normalized and accepted without a second thought.
Now that we have polarized major parties, disproportional elections have become like a cancer. PR is analogous to chemotherapy. The cancer wins unless the chemotherapy is introduced, increased and continued at sufficient strength. If the therapy is discontinued before the cancer is totally wiped out (or just never used at a sufficient strength), the cancer returns and eventually takes over. Having embarked on a PR future, there's no alternative but for Portland to evangelize the Multnomah County commission and other Oregon cities' councils, and in a few years, further strengthen its council and refine its new system, if it wants to remain free of disproportional council elections. Let's hope Portland is really in it to win it - at home and on the road.
Please see the excellent article on this blog, "Buzzword forecast for 2024: Slates - Two national experts on why Portland should learn to love candidate slates." by Maja Vikands Harris, Oct 18, 2023.
Technically, you're absolutely right. Local elections are on a non-partisan ballot. Practically, not so much - both today and under the new system.
Slates are proto- or micro-parties. A slate, as a whole, may or may not affiliate with larger statewide groups but usually does, at least informally, especially as their supporters vote in such polarized fashion for higher offices today.
While its true the ballot does not identify candidate party affiliations, most "non-partisan" council members will have a pretty readily identifiable affiliation to one or the other of the two major parties (or in the future, possibly but less likely, to a minor party), and within those parties, sub-affiliations to specific interest groups or clusters of them.
The affiliations exist but are effectively buried - rarely mentioned even on campaign literature, and usually communicated by both sides only through coded dog-whistle campaign messaging aimed to attract voters from a particular part of the political spectrum -- effectively, from a particular party or part of party.
Voters may not track or care which party wins more of the "non-partisan" seats on their city council, but the parties definitely do. It's only voters who are in the dark under this system, and left wondering why things work out as they do.
In cases where "non-partisan" city officials eventually move up to become candidates for "partisan" higher offices, their affiliations are simply then revealed in their campaign literature and on the ballot. They don't change how they view the world or how they behave.
Parties are a normal, necessary expression of democracy. On a council, gathering votes is necessary to passing legislation. Slates and parties are the alliances of voters and candidates/officials that do that, even when not advertised on the ballot.
It's right to warn that PR will face "an onslaught of repeal efforts from the get-go" like in the 20th century, perhaps starting with "mixed" initial reviews of the new system, sponsored by those who lose power and influence in the change to PR. The dominant major party loses seats on the council, and therefore power, and the second major party, by definition, isn't powerful enough to stop repeal (or may support repeal, particularly if notable local groups begin to act like a proliferation of parties and undercut the #2 party). The real problem won't be whatever the mixed reviews complain about. It'll be that Portland's council will be, for the time being, an island of proportionality in a political world of disproportionality that benefits only the two major parties, where plurality elections for single-seat assembly districts are accepted without a second thought.
The only way to protect Portland's expanded and more proportional council is to (1) sell the broader public on those same goals for the Multnomah County commission, for other Oregon cities and counties, and then for the state legislature, and (2) further expand the Portland council and make it even more fully proportional. In other words, the only defense is an effective offense that attacks disproportionality in amenable venues, one by one, until eventually it's PR that is normalized and accepted without a second thought.
Now that we have polarized major parties, disproportional elections have become like a cancer. PR is analogous to chemotherapy. The cancer wins unless the chemotherapy is introduced, increased and continued at sufficient strength. If the therapy is discontinued before the cancer is totally wiped out (or just never used at a sufficient strength), the cancer returns and eventually takes over. Having embarked on a PR future, there's no alternative but for Portland to evangelize the Multnomah County commission and other Oregon cities' councils, and in a few years, further strengthen its council and refine its new system, if it wants to remain free of disproportional council elections. Let's hope Portland is really in it to win it - at home and on the road.
Local races are nonpartisan
Please see the excellent article on this blog, "Buzzword forecast for 2024: Slates - Two national experts on why Portland should learn to love candidate slates." by Maja Vikands Harris, Oct 18, 2023.
Technically, you're absolutely right. Local elections are on a non-partisan ballot. Practically, not so much - both today and under the new system.
Slates are proto- or micro-parties. A slate, as a whole, may or may not affiliate with larger statewide groups but usually does, at least informally, especially as their supporters vote in such polarized fashion for higher offices today.
While its true the ballot does not identify candidate party affiliations, most "non-partisan" council members will have a pretty readily identifiable affiliation to one or the other of the two major parties (or in the future, possibly but less likely, to a minor party), and within those parties, sub-affiliations to specific interest groups or clusters of them.
The affiliations exist but are effectively buried - rarely mentioned even on campaign literature, and usually communicated by both sides only through coded dog-whistle campaign messaging aimed to attract voters from a particular part of the political spectrum -- effectively, from a particular party or part of party.
Voters may not track or care which party wins more of the "non-partisan" seats on their city council, but the parties definitely do. It's only voters who are in the dark under this system, and left wondering why things work out as they do.
In cases where "non-partisan" city officials eventually move up to become candidates for "partisan" higher offices, their affiliations are simply then revealed in their campaign literature and on the ballot. They don't change how they view the world or how they behave.
Parties are a normal, necessary expression of democracy. On a council, gathering votes is necessary to passing legislation. Slates and parties are the alliances of voters and candidates/officials that do that, even when not advertised on the ballot.