Lying to Oppose True Ward: Part ii

Back in the 80’s distinguishing our democratic republic from a pure democracy was a big deal and one of the core arguments I heard to support the Republican agenda.  Back then, that distinction made some sense, Republicans were protecting a wealthy minority against the tyranny of the majority and us long-hairs were – well whatever it was that we were up to.

So when conservatives start promoting representative democracy we should take note.  Kudos, right?  Or is this just a democracy-wash of a system designed to let people “have a say in electing all of our council members”.


Here is the second and most frustrating lie of the official argument against P.  And, by the way, we are still only 3 sentences into our fact-checking of this argument.

The ward system of voting in a city the size of Eureka is as far from a representative democracy as possible.  The promoters of this ill-advised change want to limit the number of people who elect City Council members.

– Melinda Ciarabellini, Rex Bohn, Mike Newman, Marian Brady

Simply not true on both accounts.  I’m one of these promoters and there is nothing more fundamental to my personal political motivating for doing what I do than to increase the percentage of informed citizens voting.  Everything else, whether it is fighting for smart growth, sustainable development or accountable policing is secondary.  The foundations of our politics and community depend on it – if we believe and act on the governing documents of the United States.  In fact my drive to increase the number of motivated and informed people electing local officials is exactly why I’ve taken up the bloggerific hobby of doing whatever I can to help someone navigate the byzantine corridors of local politics.

I would challenge those who wrote those two obnoxious sentences to come up with any evidence at all to support them.

And to turn the tables, those opposing P admit that their bottom line is to hang on to all of their votes and influence.  Their signs say it.  Mathew Owen says itAnonymous bloggers with a WordPress blog say it.  Even Mayor Frank Jäger said the following at the Rotary forum on P. (click link then use the scroll bar to get to 42 min in).

“In closing I’d only say that this measure is undemocratic and it takes away your vote.  I and many in our community want a say in electing all of our council members because they work for all of us.”

Mayor Jänoonpger and those against a true ward system want to keep their influence over the entire city. If this means there is less incentive for others to vote, so be it.  In fact I’d argue reducing the incentive for regular people who may not have the time to pay attention to 6 city-wide elections instead of just one is the darker, flip-side of the “I want all my 5 votes” argument.

Unlike those who wrote the argument above, I don’t believe that Major Jäger is consciously working to limit the number of people to vote.  However, there is no question that the movement to limit voting has been critical to the success of the Republican Party and the conservative movement nation wide.

Proof?  Here is Paul Weyrich clarifying a strategy in 30 seconds which no movement conservative can ever, ever speak out loud again. “I don’t want everybody to vote… as a matter of fact our leverage in elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down”.


Verdict:

The idea that voting for Measure P is “undemocratic” and that to support Measure P means that you want to limit the number of people that vote.  This is so wrong and misleading that it gets another max rating of 3 of 3 Trumps.

Icon by Leif Michelson from thenounproject.com


Please think about breaking through the false and misleading rhetoric this election season and vote “yes” for Measure P.  Measure P is a true ward system for Eureka.  It is. important.  It returns us to the basic essentials of democracy that had been working in Eureka for decades.  It returns greater accountability of your representative to you the voting citizen.

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Lying to Oppose True Ward: Part ii

  1. Henchman Of Justice says:

    “The ward system of voting in a city the size of Eureka is as far from a representative democracy as possible. The promoters of this ill-advised change want to limit the number of people who elect City Council members.”

    – Melinda Ciarabellini, Rex Bohn, Mike Newman, Marian Brady

    1st sentence – size of city is inconsequential……true and false because in both systems, voters are able to vote, but the misleading statement fails to admit that we all don’t get to pick every member of US or State congress and that a true ward system is “like congress” as far as structure goes (either the statement infers that the way congress is elected is rigged OR NOT – ain’t no 2 ways about it)……difference is this:

    Ward – only get to vote for 1/5 overall representation on council, making representation more obligated to a microclimate of the city unlike any other microclimate.

    But, more candidates vying for a single ward is absolutely plausible and more people will feel as if it is within the realm of possibility to run a campaign without fear that other schmoozer types will be financed citywide

    Money can’t influence as easily voters in other wards where the money is currently spent to “stack like kind politicians” as compared to the kaleidescope of candidates selected by the closest voters of and within proposed warded townships

    Yet, if the best candidates come from what would be considered the same or same couple wards, then would electing some person less popular or less qualified be a good thing…..it comes down to a boon in participation

    The second sentence:

    (“The promoters of this ill-advised change want to limit the number of people who elect City Council members.”)

    Totally false and misrepresentative by “no do good” elected officials, not surprising.

    No where has any voter been told they can’t vote for city council……difference is instead of voting for all 5 seats when they are up for renewal, you vote for 1 seat (your ward) only when it comes up for renewal.

    It is true that the number of times a voter votes is reduced, so it boils down too boundaries……do you want representation to be more localuzed to specific neighborhoods, or do you want a citywide “free for all” dismissive of neighborhood geopolitical differences

    Truth is,

    If the past 50 years could not show evidence that the current system works, then who could or would whine about a change to “test” whether results under a true ward system would faie better than “what is now.”

    Jager – talks about doing the hard work, walking around to persuade voters, etc….. (at eureka rotary function by lowv)

    Problem is that ole Frankie Jager won’t admit with a straight face in his master bath mirror that……candidates from poorer areas of the city never have influence with those people of influence (less scuzzy places, usually nicer areas)…….the recent storage facility/homeless debacle is a “front” by neo cons and liberal proggies (both of wealth) to “stage” actions to make the faux appearance of “caring”, because ya know, elections are right around the corner and a new or updated controversy must be manifested and promulgated upon the voting class because everyone else don’t count…….

    FWIW – Eureka’s election choices are no kess a joke than Hillary, Trump, Klein and Johnson…… of course, in a non ward system, people drop out and no election is necessary when a single candidate is left standing……

    But then there is this MacMullen guy at the national level…..research time…….could there be hope?

  2. Mary Ella Anderson says:

    If at large voting is more democratic than a ward or area system, why don’t we elect our supervisors at large instead of by defined districts?

  3. Henchman Of Justice says:

    HOJ appreciates viewpoints of everyone.

    HOJ commended Liberal John and openly appreciated LJ’s perspective.

    THC immediately censored the comment that recognized LJ for his perspective. (Shows how much THC is threatened by LJ’s perspective).

    THC does not like loosing issues it sides with, so it really goes to the heart of who the piece of shit ghost running THC is.

    Time to case out, lay in wait, these headquarters to expose the shills of propaganda?

    THC has been gradually fraying away from fact for fictitious propaganda, which in turn creates a disloyal atmosphere on THC’s part.

    Keep up the good thoughts LJ, just know you are hitting “them” where it counts.😉

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s