Two weeks ago we learned that John Munn and Ernie Head are pushing a petition drive to put district elections on the ballot. This has been an issue that has been pondered but never really discussed at any great length either on these pages or in the community at large.
I think most people in Davis should have learned by now that unless the community has a debate and buy-in to an issue, there is a not a great chance of it passing. A great case in point is the move to make Davis Charter City without really the kind of community discussion that needed to be generated. That effort had come out of the choice voting effort. The public had voted in an advisory capacity in 2006 to consider choice voting, but there was no true discussion of it, no real debate, no opposition.
Back now to District Elections, John Munn and Ernie head told the Davis Enterprise two weeks that their effort arises out of concern with the cost of city council campaigns which they cite between $40,000 and $50,000. They argue that district elections will lower the costs of campaigns by as much as 80 percent.
Reported the Davis Enterprise:
“This is an early indicator of wastefulness, Head said, and brings into question how prudently candidates will manage the city’s finances once elected. Campaign funds, much like city government funds, don’t materialize out of thin air, Head said. “Most of that money comes from everyone else in the city,” he said. “To me, spending that kind of money is wastefulness.”
Observe for instance in this election the three candidates raising money have raised about $23,000, $17,000, and $13,000 a piece. That is a far cry from two years ago when all of the candidates raised and spent well over $20,000 with Stephen Souza and Don Saylor raising and spending well over $50,000.
There are a number of factors that contribute to this – no incumbents, the economy is a factor, the lack of firefighter money is a factor, among others. But the bottom line is that the two top candidates will win while not reaching $25,000, and if they can do it, so can future candidates.
We have learned a lot about elections in recent years, and one thing we learn is that the three most expensive components of campaigns – TV ads, direct mail, and newspapers ads – have only a marginal impact on the outcome. The rise of free media like the Vanguard, the coverage of the Enterprise and Davis Media Access, and direct candidate contact through precinct walking, community events, candidate forums, letters to the editor, and Farmer’s Market can allow a candidate to win with one or at most two direct mail pieces and the obligatory Davis Enterprise ad.
If the pressure from groups like the Vanguard and editorials from the Davis Enterprise and columnist Rich Rifkin can cause candidates to think twice about taking firefighter money, they can shame candidates into keeping campaign costs under $25,000 and maybe less than $20,000.
If the need for district elections is based on a perceived need to contain campaign costs, then perhaps the effort is misplaced. I have long been concerned about the cost of elections and I have the campaign debt and expenses from my wife’s 2008 run to prove it.
However, I also think that going to district elections could be harmful to our community.
I think we are too small a community to break down into districts. We’re a city of still 65,000 people, most cities our size still have at-large council elections.
We would also probably have to have a direct elected mayor under such as system as our current system would be patently unfair. Perhaps an incumbent in a district would not face a challenger, then they become mayor because another district has four candidates? Under the proposal from Munn and Head, the Mayor would rotate from district to district on a yearly basis.
I would hate to see the divisions it would cause both in terms of drawing the lines to begin with, but also in terms of the distribution of resources. Right now, we have a council that worked together to bring projects and business to Davis. So all the members supported the West Lake IGA coming to West Davis. However, under district elections, would East Davis battle for their own grocery store. We have enough division without having to add candidates that are elected to represent a certain district and therefore have to support projects or interests of that district rather than the entire town.
Then there would be the battle over where to draw the district lines. I could see a fight over what areas to include. The idea of gerrymandering would be an all new element of disagreement.
The bottom-line that I am making here is that District Elections have a downside though none of those issues are completely fatal to the idea of considering it. However, I do think it is premature to put it on the ballot for consideration.
I would like to see how the next election cycle plays out. If we can continue to hold our costs down to $25,000 or less, then I think there is little need to pursue district elections. If we end up with $50,000 or even $100,000 campaigns, then that changes the calculous considerably.
Right now Davis is still small enough we can get enough contact with enough people through less expensive means and as long as that holds, I would rather not change the rules. We need to have five councilmembers thinking about all of Davis, not just their district.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
From my point of view, when a person represents “everyone,” in reality, they represent no one. I would like to know who “my” council member is.
Your council member is the person (are the persons) you voted for.
I go back and forth with supporting and not supporting district elections. In the end I do not think district elections would be good for a community our size.
Observer-From what I read on this blog, it’s whoever you give a $100 contribution. For $500 you should be able to buy the whole lot.
Just joshin’
I think that some parts of the city have been historically under-represented with the current system.
Don, which parts do you have in mind?
Today’s column by Bob Dunning touches on the same thing. Access will be free on Monday.
South Davis, the forgotten step-child of Davis planning.
I think there are 4 unique reasons why less money was raised in this election which will not normally be repeated going forward:
1. No super-incumbents ran;
2. The depressed economy;
3. No big developments on the horizon; and
4. The shame of the firefighters.
1. Generally, the people who have pushed over the $30,000 mark in campaigns have been the Don Saylor/Lois Wolk/Dave Rosenberg types, who have their own machines in place which are great at generating donations. It’s not unlikely that one or two of the winners in this cycle will 4 years from now be one of those kinds of super-incumbents.
2. This year, because of the recession, furloughs and so on, fewer donors can spare $100. When the economy rebounds, more people will be able to give more money.
3. Developers have little reason to invest in these candidates, this year. While most of the money in most of our elections comes from people who donate because they are friends with the candidates and not because they stand to profit from city council decisions, developers and other contractors literally invest in candidates. Yet when the market is overbuilt or stagnant, the ROI is too low to pour a lot of money in a campaign. That will change in future years.
4. As long as we have a $45 million retiree medical liability hanging over our heads, I think the fire union’s efforts in city council campaigns will put the Scarlet Letter on any candidates who take their money or even endorsement.
[b]The bottom line:[/b] District elections will not decrease the total amount of money spent by candidates in city council elections, because we will have 5 or 7 elections in place of one. They will, however, make it much less expensive for individual candidates to run for office. And by making it so much less expensive to get your word out, the barrier to entry will be lower and thus we will get more candidates willing to try.
[i]South Davis, the forgotten step-child of Davis planning. [/i]
East Davis (from the railroad tracks to Pole Line and from Covell to I-80) is really the part of town which has not produced members of the city council (or the school board, for that matter).
Rich: Good points, the question is really whether people like you, me, the Enterprise, Dunning, etc. can shame and get future candidates to limit their campaigns to $25,000. I’m thinking something like take the $25,000 pledge or some tool like that.
South Davis, the forgotten step-child of Davis planning.
It’s not city council, but Jim Provenza (County Board of Sups) is from El Macero, and I think Gina Daleiden and Richard Harris (school board) are from S. Davis. They are all viable players in local politics to one degree or another.
I am amazed, but not entirely surprised given my conversations with Davis progressive for many years, by the Vanguard’s opposition to district elections. Beside the fact that not since 2000 has Davis had a progressive majority, there are formidable arguments for district elections: 1) The cost of running for a city council is prohibitive for most people and invites all kinds of subterfuges so well documented by the Vanguard (whose editorial policy I agree with 95% of the time). I am astounded that a “progressive” like David Greenwald considers $25,000 a totally acceptable amount for any individual to raise for a city council seat–surely he knows how hard it is to raise this sum; 2) While there are some notable instances of money for mailers et al. not carrying the day, there is no question that any candidate has (or issue) benefits from these expenditures (Hence many Vanguard expose articles). I speak as a strong and core opponent of Measure X where, outspent as we were, key last minute contributions were critical in a campaign that was much closer than the result indicates even if we were outspent almost 10 to 1; 3) I am tired of the essential sophistry (and plain assertion) of the argument that district elections will produce divisions between districts. This argument reads like a DE editorial for community harmony and is not born out by the experience of say SF: 4) Yes SF is bigger, but district elections have made the place more democratic, and it is not just big cities that use district elections. No time to research or name them all, but start with Corvallis, Oregon (similar pop. to Davis), and indeed, as anyone who knows any history at all, it was working class and Socialists people that fought the Progressives (often unsuccessfully) to keep district elections over 100 years ago. I could go on and on but…
Herman:
I think the point you miss is that limiting campaigns to $25,000 or $20 or whatever you want caps the top spender, but it also means that someone who raises only $10 or $15 can be competitive and win.
I don’t think Davis is going to see a progressive majority again anyway, but I also think that the old lines are coming down and we are going to see a new council with a very different orientation.
I don’t agree on point 3, wherever there are districts, there are divisions based on the delivery of scarce services. I think that’s a real danger.
I can be convinced that we need them, I don’t see it now, your arguments haven’t really sold me on it. I was hoping this would generate more discussion on the merits of district elections, I threw out my thoughts, I’d be curious to know why you think having district elections would lead to a progressive majority. I only really see the core supporting progressive candidates, but I can be convinced otherwise.
wdf1, Jim Provenza is from Mace Ranch, not El Macero.
“the question is really whether people like you, me, the Enterprise, Dunning, etc. can shame and get future candidates to limit their campaigns to $25,000.”
SHAME is not a serious consideration when “big bucks” are in-play.
If that’s true, then why did Vergis not take firefighter money? I think if a candidate knows taking more money means they get pounded by Rifkin, Dunning, and myself, then it becomes a consideration. I’m also less than convinced that if we had a candidate with $70,000 in this race, that they would be assured of winning in this field.
Costs… anyone check with Freddie/County Elections in regard to the incremental cost of having 2-3 ballots (instead of one) in CC election years? I assume that they’d be held @ regular elections, so that take the poll workers out of the equation, but I’d guess 1 to 2 extra ballot types would run 5-10 K$… probably not enough to change my mind (part of me likes district elections), but if we’re looking at costs, let’s be honest. The downside of district elections (and I must say, the ONLY one I currently see)is the potential “pitting” of neighborhoods against each other for ‘pork-barrel” spending for things like neighborhood traffic calming “improvements”, deciding which parks/greenbelts have “cuts” (worst case scenario with current finances), etc.
The two promoters have histories of questionable ethics.
Observer (5/30 8:31am) puts the essential problem in a nutshell: “I would like to know who ‘my’ council member is.” There are two ways to approach this. The less desirable way is districts. You know who your council member is, but what links you to her is often an accident of geography. She happens to live in your neighborhood but may not share your views or represent your interests. The better way is choice voting at large rather than in districts. This maximizes the probability that your first choice will get elected, so that your council member is somebody who actually shares your views. The current system of at large with plurality voting is least representative of all because of the frequency of spoilers and majority sweeps.
At large choice voting also addresses the issue of campaign costs, although the mechanisms are less obvious than district elections. In at large plurality elections, you need to reach every voter (expensive), but get some coverage by city-wide media, exposure through city-wide debates, etc. In district elections, you need to reach fewer voters with mailers, lawn signs, etc., but get less media coverage of each district’s campaign. In at large choice voting elections, you can target your expenditures (especially on mailers) to the groups that are your natural base of support. And you get the same media coverage, debate opportunities and so on as you do under at large plurality.
David: Didn’t the Davis voter choose choice-voting with a majority on an advisory intiative not long ago. This initiative was to mandate that the Council take a long, hard and in-depth analysis and then vote on whether to initiate the change to choice voting. My recollection is that this voter “advice” was given a cursory nod and then promptly dismissed. Is this your recollection as well?
davisite2, I think that what happened after Measure L passed in November 2006 is open to some interpretation. Choice voting opponents on the council (Saylor, Amundsen) said frequently that there had been no such in-depth study — but also didn’t call for one. I don’t know for sure whether the choice voting proponents (Souza, Heystek) introduced a motion to conduct a study or not. In any case, they did get the council to put a charter proposal on the ballot without any major new discussion of choice voting having happened after Measure L.
The study we’re talking about might have amounted to a third governance task force, very soon after the second one had supported choice voting almost unanimously. I suppose that’s one reason no one pushed for it. But it could also have taken the form of a major presentation in a city council meeting (or spread over a few meetings to give more members of the public an opportunity to attend), with proponents and opponents given equal time after neutral academic experts had done an introductory presentation. I don’t know why that never happened. I do know that at one point the council was waiting to find out whether a bill would pass in the legislature that would have eliminated the need for a charter (the bill was vetoed). That may have distracted attention from the original mandate of Measure L.
The failure of the charter city proposal rendered the choice voting advisory proposal moot. It hardly seems worth spending money on staff time and taking up council time on a proposal that can’t be implemented.
rrichard63 says: “I don’t know why that never happened..”
The answer is pretty clear in spite of Don Shor’s explanation which really doesn’t go to the heart of the matter. We have seen two methods for local “ruling bodies” .supposedly representing/expressing the populist will of their constiutents, of dealing with advisory initiatives so that we never get to their legitimate controlling vote on the issue. One is to fail to give the correct political “weight” to the approved issue, in terms of additional task force time for the general education and consideration of the voters,so that the issue just fades from public viewand attention. The second method is to just deny the voters the opportunity to vote on the advisory initiative. This is brought to mind, if Don will permit me to stray ,in the light of the news today of Israeli forces killing 10 and wounding over 30 unarmed activists, in INTERNATIONAL WATERS, during a non-violent attempt to break the illegal Israeli blockade(boycott) by attempting to bring food, medicine, school materials, construction materials to Gaza by sea. This news brings to mind our Coop Board’s recent decision to conjure up an argument that just denied a Coop boycott ADVISORY initiative to be voted upon by its members.
Don is correct, the council put the charter before the city, now we can argue about the wisdom of separating the charter from choice vote and drawing it so broadly that it could be used to support all sorts of things, but we cannot question that they put the charter on as the first step toward implementing choice voting. Without the charter city, we cannot have choice voting. That simple.
“Without the charter city, we cannot have choice voting. That simple.”
NO, I’m afraid that its NOT that simple! If the Council had taken “seriously” the voter’s advisory initiative to SERIOUSLY consider choice voting, I believe what rrichard63 suggested was that there should have been a task force investigating the details of a charter city, perhaps a Council workshop where staff/Harriet Steiner would outline the issues and, this is key,what minimal steps would be necessary to make us eligible to be a charter city, the consequences and possible measures to mitigate consequences that were thought to be negative.. This information could be discussed in detail on the Vanguard,on the Council dais, in the Enterprise, letters to the editor, etc. To the best of my recollection, none of the above were done SERIOUSLY before putting the charter “on”.
We debated the charter proposal, and the voters rejected it. I participated in one televised debate (opposed) and on local television. The possibility of choice voting was one of the arguments made by the charter proponents. The steps were clear as to what was necessary. Charter city status has, IMO, significant drawbacks, and there are no ways to mitigate some of those negative consequences. Once the city is a charter city, the council has many more powers than it does now. The charter can be narrowly written, but once approved it can be amended by majority vote.
I assume that the voters knew what they were doing when they rejected charter city status, and that they were aware that in so doing they were preventing choice voting. Asked to consider choice voting, they said “sure, consider it.” Asked to make it possible, they chose not to do so. Proponents of choice voting can try again with a narrowly written charter (which I would probably oppose again), and see how it goes. But until it is possible to adopt choice voting without being a charter city, or until the voters approve charter city status, there is no point in expending any public funds on choice voting.
If you’re arguing that things could have been done better by Lamar Heystek and Stephen Souza, I don’t disagree. But I don’t agree that was a matter of not taking it seriously. I don’t think btw, that the council was obligated to do anything just because the voters approved an advisory measure that had no opposition.
When I posted about the historical background, I wasn’t trying to suggest that the council has any obligation to conduct a review of choice voting now, after the failure of the charter proposal. I tend to agree with Don Shor and David in that specific respect. What I was trying to do was respond to davisite2 (5/31 8:16am).
That said, as I suggested in my first post, I think choice voting has something to offer both to proponents of districts and to proponents of at large elections. In fact, it’s better than both. Other cities have adopted charters after turning them down the first time. But it may be a little early to bring it up again in Davis.
[i]”I think choice voting has something to offer both to proponents of districts and to proponents of at large elections.”[/i]
I agree. I want district and I prefer instant run-offs, as they insure that the winner gets majority support. However, it should be noted that in order to have district elections, we don’t need to have a charter.
I have been told (and have read) that in order to have choice voting we must first have a charter. However, I cannot find that in the state election code. This seems to be the operative language ([url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=10001-11000&file=10260-10266[/url]): [quote]10263. Upon the completion of the canvass and before installing the new officers, the governing body shall adopt a resolution reciting the fact of the election and the other matters that are enumerated in Section 10264. [b]The governing body shall declare elected the persons for whom the highest number of votes were cast for each office. [/b] [/quote] I don’t read that as precluding choice voting. Choice voting simply gives each voter — when for example 3 candidates are running for one office — three votes, and the ability to rank those votes in order of preference. The governming body would still “declare elected the person for whom the highest number of votes were cast,” but the votes would effectively be weighted votes based on preference.
Probably my interpretation of Code 10263 has been ruled incorrect by a court or there is some other code language which I could not find which is operative. If anyone has a definitive source, please let me know.
The part of the Election Code that is most difficult to reconcile with choice voting (single winner or multiple winner) is Sections 15450 through 15452. For example:
[quote]15452. The person who receives a plurality of the votes cast for any office is elected or nominated to that office in any election, except: (a) An election for which different provision is made by any city or county charter. …
[url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=35275424067+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve[/url][/quote]
The word “plurality” pretty much excludes looking at people’s second choices to find majority support for a winning candidates.
…perhaps one could have each vacant seat on the Council designated as seat A, seat B, etc. Then within the vote-counting structure of a choice voting system, there would be a candidate for each “office” elected by a plurality, seat A for the candidate with the most votes,, followed by a candidate who received a plurality of the remaining votes for seat B, etc.
David,
I anything but miss the point! It is the huge cost of getting elected to the city council, be it $25,,000 or $45,000, that concerns me much more than anything else. This provides a huge diisincentive, as if there weren’t enough, for qualified people (AND LESS WELL OFF)) to run for council and also invites the “corruption” of the electoral process which you profess to care about so much. I thought it was tragic that Lamar (whom I supported) ended up with a huge campaign debt, and I fail to understand how you are so unmoved by this fundamental argument in the light of your own wife’s campaign debts. Please enlighten us as to why the campaign debts of Lamar, your wife, and others seem a relatively trivial matter to you.
What is this new “very different orientation” you expect to see as an alternative to a progressive majority and to Amundson, Saylor, Souza and predecessors? A government of “experts” like Swanson and Krovoza who will be “objective?”. Well I will vote for the above as the lesser of several prospective evils without feeling truly confident that if these two are elected we can be assured of progressive stands of city growth and other causes espoused by you. We can, as others have said, only hope for the best.
You say you want a full debate on the subject and yet to my original point three about arguments that district elections will cause divisions being a plain assertion without much evidence, you respond yet again with a bland assertion that there is this danger. What studies would you cite? What examples can you provide? And, of course, there are always going to be divisions in the council based on many things.
I do not see any argument trumping the one to make election to the city council more affordable, and feel that you David do not really grasp this despite your own personal experience. It may or may not be the case that district elections would lead to a more progressive council. But district elections would surely be a starting point and I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that progressives today, and historically, have believed in district, as opposed to at large, elections and to limiting campaign spending. If you really think that districts lead to divisions, pork barrel spending or whatever then maybe we should elect Yolo County supervisors at large, and why for that matter why not the California assembly and senate, as well as the whole California Congressional delegation?
Finally, is your best solution to the fact that many people running for council have had to spend in excess of $40,000 simply to try and morally pressure candidates not to spend more than $25,000—a pretty substantial figure in itself? I’d have thought that even advocates of “good” government, let alone so called progressives, would be imaginative and knowledgeable enough to come up with better and more radiical solutions.
Finally, finally, having read recent new contributions before posting this message, I am saddened to see that commentators are not focusing on the core issues surrounding district elections but are more interested in the relatively tangential issue of a charter city and choice voting. So much for the debate on district elections that the Vanguard hoped to launch! It speaks volumes to the fragmentation of the Davis progressive, and even center, voting “blocks.”
I disagree with nearly all of your arguments, David. I also think that choice voting is irrelevant to this issue.
“They argue that district elections will lower the costs of campaigns by as much as 80 percent.”
This is one of the best arguments in favor of district elections. This year’s election is a fluke in terms of costs.
“But the bottom line is that the two top candidates will win while not reaching $25,000, and if they can do it, so can future candidates.”
Because it is possible, that doesn’t mean it is probable. There is very little at stake in this election cycle. Election costs inexorably increase.
“If the pressure from groups like the Vanguard and editorials from the Davis Enterprise and columnist Rich Rifkin can cause candidates to think twice about taking firefighter money, they can shame candidates into keeping campaign costs under $25,000 and maybe less than $20,000.”
If a candidate believes it will take more money to win, they will raise and spend more money to win.
“I think we are too small a community to break down into districts. We’re a city of still 65,000 people, most cities our size still have at-large council elections.”
Davis breaks down into districts more readily than most cities I can think of.
“So all the members supported the West Lake IGA coming to West Davis. However, under district elections, would East Davis battle for their own grocery store.”
I certainly hope so. East Davis still has a blighted shopping center. Unequal application of city resources has been an ongoing problem for East Davis. I’m baffled by your argument here. I would hope that an East Davis representative would have held out for some deal that helped other parts of the city as well.
“We need to have five councilmembers thinking about all of Davis, not just their district.”
We need to have councilmembers who look out for the parts of town that are historically under-represented.
davisite2 (5/31 5:25pm), your proposal is a sidebar to this thread, so I’ll be very brief. I eat, sleep and breath electoral reform, and I think I can speak authoritatively. Ad hoc, untested proposals like this one may sound appealing but they almost always have unexpected results. Choice voting — both single winner (instant runoff) and multi-winner (single transferable vote) — are well understood on the basis of extensive experience.
The arguments of Herman and Don Shor make ultimate sense. The number one issue is the cost of getting elected and thus the lack of viable candidates of whatever strip to stand for election. This constant cry of “divisions” caused by district elections is merely a red herring. It just has not happened in cities that have adopted district elections. Moreover, the “problem” of the major also does not present much of an obstacle. To solve that problem you merely divide Davis into six districts and have specific candidates run only for major and they must run a city wide election.
Odilo