Thanks for this superb interview, and thanks to Commissioner Mapps for the thoughtful comments. I agree almost completely with his sensible take on the reform package coming out of the Charter Commission. Oversized multi-member districts in particular will be a mistake that Portland will regret almost instantly if they're adopted. And his skepticism regarding ranked choice voting and eliminating the primary seems apt.
I'm less concerned about tie-breaking on an even-numbered council, because that can be easily addressed in the Charter by fixing the number of votes needed to pass legislation in a 12-member council as a "constitutional majority" of 7. More concerning to me is deciding who presides over the larger council and what powers that presiding officer can wield. And those are things the Charter Commission did not address squarely.
Mostly though, I just wish that the guy with the Charter Reform PAC, and the guy who ran for office on a platform of systemic reform, could have spoken out sooner. I worry that the Charter Commission, after more than a year of work, might be too invested in their own proposals to change their minds about anything at this point. The roadmap Mapps provides here would be wildly popular and much better for Portland's future than the Chater Commission's, but I'm very worried that it's not going to be the one that Portland voters get to vote on.
A comment on your suggested constitutional majority of 7 needed to pass legislation. I think that's pretty much what they have proposed- need 7 votes to pass something. As a sop to those (like me) who advocated an even number of seats like virtually any comparable large city, they made one change to have the mayor break a tie.
But alas no mayoral veto with council override, again like virtually all comparable cities, so there is no check and balance on legislative powers.
I completely agree with your comments about the 4 mega districts (maps to be provided later!). And when combined with ranked choice voting, this means that Portland will be the ONLY jurisdiction in the country to have ranked choice voting in multi-member districts.
I remain fascinated by, but agnostic, on the proposals for multi-member districts and ranked choice voting.
I'm wondering how multi-member districts will affect (1) the avowed purpose of increasing, and making effective, representation for under-represented groups and (2) the need to set the stage for a larger council to align for common, city-wide purposes?
(1) If each district elects three representatives by determining its top three finishers (whether by ranked choice voting or otherwise) will not those elected be perceived as greater (top vote getter) and lesser (2nd and 3rd vote getters)? And will this then tend to create new divisions in a council where supporters of the top vote getters argue that their policies deserve more weight (because they received more votes), and the lesser vote getters and their supporters argue that their constituents deserve better etc.? (BTW, with RCV, couldn't some of those elected in the second and third rounds tally more final votes than the first round winner? So the RCV approach may complicate things even more.)
But, regardless of the voting method, will multi-member districts give rise to new fault lines for polarization, both within districts and city-wide? Within districts, by encouraging council members to play to different constituencies within their districts? Or, city wide, will coalitions tend to form around districts of one kind versus another (West Hills vs. East Portland)?
Obviously, I have more questions than answers, but I hope all of these potential effects get full consideration by the council.
(2) Then, whatever the dynamics created by this system, my last question is: How will the new system help Portlanders pull together for common, city-wide purposes and priorities?
“the top vote getters argue that their policies deserve more weight (because they received more votes)”
Is that bad? They were more popular among the electorate. Their prospects for reelection are naturally better because they have a larger margin to lose. Proportional representation isn't about turning minority opinion into the majority. It's about better enfranchising minority opinion, giving that perspective more influence. It will be natural for the 3rd-seat winner to seek alliance with those who won with a larger, more stable portion of the electorate. This enables a minority perspective to help shape policy and advance their own standing by showing they can get things done.
It will also be natural for those alliances between 1st and 3rd tier reps to occur between different districts since they will naturally compete with each other for votes in their home district. This also has value because the _voters_ for the 1st and 3rd tier candidates in the same district in all likelihood don't share the same values and vision. However, they may find overlap with voters (and their corresponding electeds) in another district. Having only four districts is going to make it such that the geography doesn't actually come into play much.
Thanks for this superb interview, and thanks to Commissioner Mapps for the thoughtful comments. I agree almost completely with his sensible take on the reform package coming out of the Charter Commission. Oversized multi-member districts in particular will be a mistake that Portland will regret almost instantly if they're adopted. And his skepticism regarding ranked choice voting and eliminating the primary seems apt.
I'm less concerned about tie-breaking on an even-numbered council, because that can be easily addressed in the Charter by fixing the number of votes needed to pass legislation in a 12-member council as a "constitutional majority" of 7. More concerning to me is deciding who presides over the larger council and what powers that presiding officer can wield. And those are things the Charter Commission did not address squarely.
Mostly though, I just wish that the guy with the Charter Reform PAC, and the guy who ran for office on a platform of systemic reform, could have spoken out sooner. I worry that the Charter Commission, after more than a year of work, might be too invested in their own proposals to change their minds about anything at this point. The roadmap Mapps provides here would be wildly popular and much better for Portland's future than the Chater Commission's, but I'm very worried that it's not going to be the one that Portland voters get to vote on.
A comment on your suggested constitutional majority of 7 needed to pass legislation. I think that's pretty much what they have proposed- need 7 votes to pass something. As a sop to those (like me) who advocated an even number of seats like virtually any comparable large city, they made one change to have the mayor break a tie.
But alas no mayoral veto with council override, again like virtually all comparable cities, so there is no check and balance on legislative powers.
I completely agree with your comments about the 4 mega districts (maps to be provided later!). And when combined with ranked choice voting, this means that Portland will be the ONLY jurisdiction in the country to have ranked choice voting in multi-member districts.
I remain fascinated by, but agnostic, on the proposals for multi-member districts and ranked choice voting.
I'm wondering how multi-member districts will affect (1) the avowed purpose of increasing, and making effective, representation for under-represented groups and (2) the need to set the stage for a larger council to align for common, city-wide purposes?
(1) If each district elects three representatives by determining its top three finishers (whether by ranked choice voting or otherwise) will not those elected be perceived as greater (top vote getter) and lesser (2nd and 3rd vote getters)? And will this then tend to create new divisions in a council where supporters of the top vote getters argue that their policies deserve more weight (because they received more votes), and the lesser vote getters and their supporters argue that their constituents deserve better etc.? (BTW, with RCV, couldn't some of those elected in the second and third rounds tally more final votes than the first round winner? So the RCV approach may complicate things even more.)
But, regardless of the voting method, will multi-member districts give rise to new fault lines for polarization, both within districts and city-wide? Within districts, by encouraging council members to play to different constituencies within their districts? Or, city wide, will coalitions tend to form around districts of one kind versus another (West Hills vs. East Portland)?
Obviously, I have more questions than answers, but I hope all of these potential effects get full consideration by the council.
(2) Then, whatever the dynamics created by this system, my last question is: How will the new system help Portlanders pull together for common, city-wide purposes and priorities?
“the top vote getters argue that their policies deserve more weight (because they received more votes)”
Is that bad? They were more popular among the electorate. Their prospects for reelection are naturally better because they have a larger margin to lose. Proportional representation isn't about turning minority opinion into the majority. It's about better enfranchising minority opinion, giving that perspective more influence. It will be natural for the 3rd-seat winner to seek alliance with those who won with a larger, more stable portion of the electorate. This enables a minority perspective to help shape policy and advance their own standing by showing they can get things done.
It will also be natural for those alliances between 1st and 3rd tier reps to occur between different districts since they will naturally compete with each other for votes in their home district. This also has value because the _voters_ for the 1st and 3rd tier candidates in the same district in all likelihood don't share the same values and vision. However, they may find overlap with voters (and their corresponding electeds) in another district. Having only four districts is going to make it such that the geography doesn't actually come into play much.
Good points.