Arguments For and Against Eureka’s True Ward

The young man (best guess) over at The Humboldt Confidential (THC) stepped away from the disingenuous (and completely misleading) and recently, deeply irresponsible arguments (I won’t link to it) to focus on an argument against Measure P on it’s merits.  (sorry for all the parenthesis)

You can find his argument against a true ward system here.

Here is my response.

yes pls

The great thing about P, win or lose, is it is allowing our local “ole boys network”* to show their true colors. I would generally use the descriptor “conservative”, but being against P has nothing to do with conservatism or conservative principles unless that principle is maintaining power for those that deserve power.

“There’s a harsh truth that the proponent of Measure P aren’t telling you about. And it’s that they want to put the fate of the City in the hands of very, very few people.”

I would replace “harsh truth” with “amazing feature”, and we would love to tell you and everyone else about this feature of returning democracy to communities.

Question: Do more people voting necessarily make better decisions? Did you pay attention to the Republican primary?

“That’s 1,800 people deciding on a leader of the City who, for four years, will be completely unaccountable to the rest of the populace.”‘

But you will be able to un-elect them in 4 years. You can’t do that, for example, to local monopoly businesses. Our representatives ARE accountable because their terms are limited to 4 years. Again, this is a feature of democracy and government and not a bug.

“In THC’s mind, 1,800 people having such an enormous impact on a city of 27,000 isn’t wise, nor politically fair.”

Again, votes!?!?

Exactly THC. That is your truth. You believe that five citywide votes for one individual are better than one because you don’t want to deal with the messy problem of actual people having influence in government. This is important because paying attention to your blog content over the past months, one can’t help but notice that you pretend to be a voice of the people, of one of the economically downtrodden, simply here to protect the people from the excesses of the government.

But when you have a chance to encourage your readers to return their excess votes (plural) to those that understand that Eureka’s system has been rigged …well…”We’d like to hold on to these actually. Our towns really too small and, btw, have you noticed the odor emanating from many of those 1,800? Are they really trustworthy of voting for someone who will be in office for (gulp) FOUR years?”

Eureka’s electoral system was consciously set up to make sure that a small group of pillars of the community (by their definition) have a disproportionately large voice in our city’s government, representative democracy be damned. Measure P begins to disassemble a part of that system.

I get it, the thought of changing back to a fairer form of representative government is scary, but change often is, even if in the end we all will be better for it.**
*Take a look at this ad for Mr. Fullerton and note those endorsing him (the latest ran Tuesday on A3).fullerton

Four old, familiarly conservative men on the Eureka Planning Commission, four old, familiarly conservative men on the Humboldt Planning Commission. God love old men, I’m one of them myself. The issue here is that there is a very small cohort of people, much smaller than 1,800 that is running our town (not to mention County). Measure P tries to return the people’s voice back to government. Supporters of the true ward system (Measure P) wish to spread the wealth of democracy.

** Take a look at this video. This is about voting rights because reminding people they do have an important fraction of the vote MAY help non-partisan registration wonks like me get our miserable registration and voter participation rates up.


2 thoughts on “Arguments For and Against Eureka’s True Ward

  1. Henchman Of Justice says:

    “The issue here is that there is a very small cohort of people, much smaller than 1,800 that is running our town (not to mention County). ”

    Exactly, and it should be illegal to endorse or support any candidate using any title other than “your legal human name”, not titles that are tainted already.

    A former or current insider should not be allowed to publicly endorse… has been a problem evolving moreso lately because insiders are losing their grip.

    Now, Chuck Elseworth is a good man, but the board he sits on is a local sham. HOJ hopes Chuck steps down, he should not taint his character serving on such an unconstitutional, locally created gubbamint sham board…….what’s up Chuck?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s