In rationalizing their three-member districts proposal, the Charter Commissioners are constantly comparing it to our two U.S. Senators. Here again, Candace says, "I don't think it's any different than how we hold our Oregon senators accountable. We elect both, they both represent us, and we hold both accountable." But it's not the same at all. We get an up-or-down vote on each senator independently. They don't run against each other. They aren't competing politically and therefore aren't motivated to deflect or snipe or hide or blame the other in order to avoid accountability.
Meanwhile, the lower threshold to get elected means that there's a much higher threshold to remove somebody. It literally gets three times harder for voters to hold a councilperson accountable in an election. The Charter Commissioners keep saying the word "accountability" but their proposal simply makes true accountability much harder to come by.
Good points. Especially that we get a vote counted for each Senator. And notice she doesn't compare it to our Congressional House races, our state legislative races, all single member districts- or even a multi-member district with 3 distinct seats for which a voter can have 3 votes counted- rather than at best only 1 even though there are 3 people to be elected.
And her statement that "If I had run my 2020 campaign under the proposed system, I would have wanted to band together in groups," confirms that the proposed the single transferable voting version of ranked choice in multi-member districts is designed to foster candidates running in slates supported by special interest groups from across the political spectrum.
Hi Richard! I serve on the Multnomah County Charter Review Committee, which I wrote about in my inaugural post in February. As you can tell, I’m a charter geek.
That board has no connection to the Portland Charter Commission.
There is a reason I don’t write more about my participation on the Multnomah County Charter Review Committee - it leads to the kind of confusion that arose just now.
They are completely independent of each other and involve two vastly different home rule charters. And my participation on the Multnomah County Charter Review Committee is no indication of where “I’m coming from”.
Perhaps you’re new to my blog, but I cover a variety of perspectives.
My best performing post of all time is an interview with Mingus Mapps criticizing the proposal. My last Q&A was with Vadim Mozyrsky. This Q&A gives Candace Avalos a chance to respond. I think that’s fair.
You seem like a person who likes debate. There will be more of that to look forward to in my newsletter.
In rationalizing their three-member districts proposal, the Charter Commissioners are constantly comparing it to our two U.S. Senators. Here again, Candace says, "I don't think it's any different than how we hold our Oregon senators accountable. We elect both, they both represent us, and we hold both accountable." But it's not the same at all. We get an up-or-down vote on each senator independently. They don't run against each other. They aren't competing politically and therefore aren't motivated to deflect or snipe or hide or blame the other in order to avoid accountability.
Meanwhile, the lower threshold to get elected means that there's a much higher threshold to remove somebody. It literally gets three times harder for voters to hold a councilperson accountable in an election. The Charter Commissioners keep saying the word "accountability" but their proposal simply makes true accountability much harder to come by.
Good points. Especially that we get a vote counted for each Senator. And notice she doesn't compare it to our Congressional House races, our state legislative races, all single member districts- or even a multi-member district with 3 distinct seats for which a voter can have 3 votes counted- rather than at best only 1 even though there are 3 people to be elected.
And her statement that "If I had run my 2020 campaign under the proposed system, I would have wanted to band together in groups," confirms that the proposed the single transferable voting version of ranked choice in multi-member districts is designed to foster candidates running in slates supported by special interest groups from across the political spectrum.
> I'm astounded that Ms. Harris does not ID herself as one of the members of the Charter Commission
Probably because she's not on the commission...
Hi Richard! I serve on the Multnomah County Charter Review Committee, which I wrote about in my inaugural post in February. As you can tell, I’m a charter geek.
That board has no connection to the Portland Charter Commission.
There is a reason I don’t write more about my participation on the Multnomah County Charter Review Committee - it leads to the kind of confusion that arose just now.
They are completely independent of each other and involve two vastly different home rule charters. And my participation on the Multnomah County Charter Review Committee is no indication of where “I’m coming from”.
Perhaps you’re new to my blog, but I cover a variety of perspectives.
My best performing post of all time is an interview with Mingus Mapps criticizing the proposal. My last Q&A was with Vadim Mozyrsky. This Q&A gives Candace Avalos a chance to respond. I think that’s fair.
You seem like a person who likes debate. There will be more of that to look forward to in my newsletter.