This question has come up on a number of different threads but I thought it might be helpful to address it head on.
Under Newton’s current charter, every registered voter has a say in the election of their own ward councilor and all 16 of our at-large councilors, or just over 2/3rds of our 24 total city council.
The proposed charter shrinks the council to 12, eliminates the ward council slots and empowers all voters to vote on 100 percent their city councilors.
I believe there are compelling pros and cons to both systems. But I’m really interested in having a philosophical discussion strictly on the question “what’s more democratic” because I think it’s an interesting one and know that for some this is also nuanced.
And while I’m confident our regular participants will have a lot to say about this, it would be great to also hear from folks who have not yet commented in on this matter.
@Greg- You’ve biased the thread with the title and much of the phrasing of the post. As is, its more like a push-poll. If you the philosophy, re-title and describe in a more balance fashion.
That 100%–2/3 is not the issue to be nuanced. The issue is whether or not the residents of each of the city’s wards can elect Their Own Representative. If the voters in the rest of the city vote on my ward’s “resident representative,” that “representative” can hardly be my ward representative. I want to select someone who represents the perspective of me and my neighbors. I don’t want people from the rest of the city to decide for me. Who would? And I don’t know enough to decide for Newton Center or Waban or Newtonville or the rest what is best for them. Does that mean that I’m willing to forgo “100% democracy”? I guess it does. I want my voice to be heard on my neighborhood issues. How un-democratic of me. With 8 at-large, I am comfortable with the balance of 16.
There are more than 2 options. You could have only ward elected councilor, 1 out of 8 (1/8). You could elect 1 ward council and 4 at large councilors out of 12 total (5/12). You could elected 1 ward councilor and 8 at large ward councilors (9/16). Personally I prefer the 5/12 and 9/16 options. I think ward elected councilors are important to diversity of opinions and keeping money out of elections. I’d rather a councilor indebted to their ward for votes than big funders.
@Lucia Actually at this point there are only two options: Yes or no on the proposed charter.
@Charlie, how about “What’s more democratic, being able to elect 2/3rds of your City Council or 100 percent?” 😀 It’s a valid choice. The flip side of (arbitrarily more or less) direct representation is obvious. I feel Greg’s point is a fair one worth acknowledging. One twist is that in the current system, representatives elected by a (very) small part of the population have limited accountability but equal power to those elected by the full population, all the way up to chairing committees and chairing the entire council. I don’t think that’s always served us well. I wonder why a reduced role for Ward Councilors was never on the table? (I think I heard Newton originally had two chambers? That doesn’t sound appealing.)
I guess I am somewhat jaded in thinking this is an issue of “democracy” rather than the ability to vote out someone that does not share your own views. I think this Country has benefited by leadership comprised by people with different, and even competing bias and viewpoints. I would rather have someone representing my local needs as well as the local needs of other constituencies around the city than being able to vote for a group of people all with my own point of view. Sadly the CC failed in this regard, IMO.
Do folks here have a basic understanding of our democratic system? For example, that Newton’s State Reps get to vote on everything related to Massachusetts, Joe Kennedy gets to vote on everything related to the United States, as do Senators Warren and Markey…
@Councilor Norton: You are describing one democratic system. Surely you’re not suggesting it’s the only democratic system?
My question is, which one is “more democratic”?
If you believe it’s our present ward/at large system, please explain why.
Or if like Rich Morahan, you are willing to sacrifice a degree of “more democratic” because of the other benefits that our ward system offers, that’s cool too. But let’s just acknowledge that.
I feel Newton is small enough to have everyone elect all councilors, and not slice and dice it further into neighborhood-level representation.
I don’t think this should only be about one way being more “democratic” than the other. After all, ancient Athens was certainly more democratic than our present form of government. But I think most of us would prefer the U.S. Constitution.
What’s important is “representation,” IMHO.
The vast majority of the problems associated with Newton city government have more to do with the people on the city council than any sort of spatial constraints associated with the election process. What difference does it really make who gets to vote for whom when most all of the choices are so painfully mediocre?
Also, I do wish Mr. Reibman would stop using this thread to so surreptitiously push the clearly anti-Newton agenda of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce. For shame Mr. Reibman. For shame! Where oh, where is the transparency we have so come to expect and should continue to demand on this valuable public forum?
Our “system” was a source of great debate by the founders. For example, our current system has members of the House of Representatives in Congress elected by district, but Senators elected statewide. So far so good. But representatives of small states at the first Constitutional Congress wanted each state to have the same number of Senators, thereby giving them equal power in the Senate, while representatives from larger states wanted the number of senators to be elected in proportion to their populations as in the House. That would have given larger states more power in both the House and Senate.
Our Electoral College, which has been the cause of much consternation because of the presidential elections in 2000 and 2016, where the winner of the popular vote lost in the Electoral College, was set up intentionally to give smaller states more of a say and to force presidential candidates to have to campaign in every state. (Because African slaves were deemed 3/5 of a person, it also distinctly–and not coincidentally–gave a clear advantage to slave states where a significant portion of the population were slaves who had not vote.)
On the state level, none of our state senators are elected statewide, but there are far fewer districts (160 representative districts versus just 40 senate districts).
My point is, there is no one way to divvy up representation that makes it more or less “democratic” (small “d”) than any other way. Indeed, Chapter 40 gives a variety of options of the form of city government. None of them are truly democratic, since representatives get to make most decisions about governing and government, not a plebiscite, which would be the most “democratic” but also the most unmanageable form of government imaginable. So we ought to be talking about our form of government as a “constitutional” or “representative” form of government, not purely as democratic.
When Newton was a town, and when it had a bicameral legislative body, the number of ward representatives outnumbered the at large by 2 to 1, and there were fewer wards. As the city grew, and the bicameral legislature became a unicameral legislature, it was decided that the at large should out number the ward representatives by 2 to 1, but that every ward must have the same number of representatives. The proposed charter simply continues that trend toward more at large representation by having all of the councilors elected at large, with one coming from each ward and 4 that can come from any ward.
In this age, when City Hall is no more than a 15 minute car ride from the farthest reaches of the city and communication by email, text, and phone is instantaneous, there is an argument to be made that you don’t need ward representation as much as in the days when it could take hours or days to receive communications from residents and representatives could not visit other parts of the city as easily. Some of you may not be persuaded by such an argument, and may retain a more parochial view of what government should be. And that is fine. But this argument over whether one or the other is any more democratic than the other is sort of pointless. They are all “democratic” in that the representative who gets the most votes wins. Except for Prop 2-1/2 overrides and initiatives and referenda, however, there is really no such thing as a “true” democracy in our form of state and local government.
Now, if you want to talk about proportional voting…. 😉
1. The proposed Council configuration would result in the reduction of equal citizen participation in the democratic process by creating an economic barrier to entry to candidacy by removing all the directly elected ward councilors. To run a candidacy for ward councilor within a single ward is vastly cheaper than running a citywide campaign. It costs much more more to run for an at-large council position than to run for a directly elected ward council seat. In 2015 newcomer Jake Auchincloss spent over $30,000 to gain his at-large seat. In 2013 Alison Leary spent $3000 for her Ward ceat. New candidates are able to walk the ward, speaking to a large proportion of the voters, introducing themselves and ascertaining information about the voters’ needs. In contrast, it is impossible for an at-large candidate to knock on every door in the city. To finance the expensive media-intensive campaign that must substitute for the face-to-face interactions appropriate for a ward candidacy, the at-large candidate must have a deep pocket organization or party to support the methods necessary for an at-large campaign. New entrants to the political process are highly unlikely to obtain such support.
2. The proposed Council configuration would prevent the empowerment of grassroots in communities because it would isolate local voices from a remote more centralized city government. Advocacy for local issues would face the same burden that confronts an at-large candidate when compared to a ward candidate. The ward would lose its champion.
We know that change is coming to Newton and that well financed developers are waiting in the wings for our response this November. If the charter passes, residents of each ward will no longer have their ward councilor, elected by ward voters only, to be a defender of their rights. Grassroots participation will play a smaller role as a more centralized city council governs from a more remote City Hall. There will be no representative knowledgeable of the practical concerns of those citizens who are most affected by any proposal seen as supposedly “good for the city.” To hear the community’s voice through its local ward representative is to produce a better change and to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It might take more work and longer meetings, but the end result is invariably better than proposals developed without adequate local input.
3. Electing a councilor-at-large does not guarantee representativeness. The election of an at-large city councilor can be completely dominated by one or a few wards with high voter turnout. Minority voices or those of differing socio-economic groups can be completely shut out. However, voting in a set of eight different wards, by residents living only in those wards, DOES guarantee that everyone is truly represented. Boston has moved to district representation. Framingham has just adopted it to guarantee equitable representation in its new city form of government and we would be well advised to keep our current balance of at-large and directly elected ward representatives to maintain our genuine local democracy. We should not allow our city government to be centralized, with a smaller less representative council, while losing the precious ward councilor advocate we have enjoyed for many decades.
I do not think it is more democratic to move to a system that other cities and towns are moving away from precisely because it disenfranchises those with less money and power.
At-large helps rich and powerful. District representation helps less monied, less powerful.
It has been very interesting to me speaking with those who cut their teeth politically in the 1960’s… they can’t believe Newton is considering moving to a more at-large system.
@Emily: the development Community wasn’t slavering at Newton’s door in the ’60’s. It is the pressure from density advocates that is driving this whole movement! Follow the money!!!!!!
@Sallee and @Emily, you say that district representation helps those with less money and power. Aren’t you really saying it helps candidates with less money and power? Because that is not really the same thing.
As I have said many times, if you want the fairest election system (which is what we should be arguing about, not whether one system or another is more democratic), adopt proportional voting. It ensures that the minority has a voice but the majority retains control. District representation ensures only that government will be more parochial, and that representatives will be more like delegates who vote based on what is more popular rather than as representatives who vote based on the exercise of their independent judgment in the best long-term interests of the entire community.
Sallee – Look at the http://www.ocpf.us/ Website and Follow the MONEY. What you will find is that Ward Councilors are in the $500.00 donation club – Money from Developers and Special Interest Groups. They are already getting Donations from Developers.
As a matter of ideology, I think the proposal is more democratic. Especially if you adhere to Merriam-Webster’s first definition: “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.” Certainly the new charter adheres to majority rule. A simple majority of Newton voters will be able to choose 100% of our representatives.
But you can have too much democracy. I prefer a structure that is more representative, and slightly less democratic than what has been proposed. I want protection against tyranny of the majority built into the charter, even if we all believe the good voters of Newton are incapable of voting in a way that suppresses minority viewpoints. Who knows what will happen in coming decades? Did anyone predict what’s happened on a national level?
Yes to proportional voting! But absent that, I prefer a mix of at-large and ward.
Ted:
Agreed. Proportional voting would have been a good change.
Also, I do love how everything is somehow related to the “development community”. Sallee, just because someone doesn’t agree with your position doesn’t mean it is just about the money, or undue influence of a rich few. There are MANY folks who liked Austin Street for instance. Engine 6 proponents were a collection of affordable housing advocates and progressive folks. Not exactly your “rich development types”.
Also, who exactly is a density advocate?
Perhaps this isn’t just about money (which exists on both sides btw). Perhaps some of us have a different vision for Newton and care about it equally.
@Fig, I have been accused of being a density advocate. It is because I am in favor of Smart Growth.
Of course, I could be wrong. I have also been accused of density.
I’ve always found our City Council’s current configuration to be undemocratic and frankly puzzling for this reason: Ward councilors hold the same weight as at-large-councilors in City Council votes, i.e. councilors elected by voters from only 1/8 of the Newton electorate have the same voting power on the Council as those elected by 8x that. This is an ill-conceived vestige of a bygone era–one with a bicameral council–that just doesn’t make sense.
@Councilor Hess-Mahan: Thanks very much for the fascinating historic perspective. And also for reminding us that candidates with less power and money aren’t necessarily the best advocates for those with less money and power. Some times yes. Some times no. Certainly the Kennedy family is the best known example, but we have others, including on our City Council.
@Charlie: I’ve removed a comment of yours that I believe you accidentally posted on this thread since it is off topic here and I’d really like to keep this thread on topic for as long as possible.
@Greg — You may want to inquire as to whether any readers of V14 that are undecided on this issue.
Democracy is a “system” of government with different branches. We are talking about the legislative branch of our city government. Legislatures typically (commonly, nearly always?) comprises legislators elected directly by geographic slices of the city/state/country being governed. In Massachusetts, only 9 of 351 communities lack this feature. Cities utilizing 100% at-large voting are being found to violate the Voting Rights Act.
Legislative decisions are not always the 50%+1 as Bryan likes to quote. The senate requires (at least for the moment) 60 votes of a diversely elected body to pass legislation and up until recently to confirm Supreme Court Justices. It is (was) not 60 votes of a homogeneously elected body.
If we want our legislative decisions to simply represent 50% of us, lets just simplify the ballot entirely by just electing a Mayor, and then have her or him appoint a council that reflects their particular views.
@Ted — Just curious – was this fake article news? Hackers are everywhere these days…
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2016/09/16/should-newton-adopt-term-limits-for-its-mayor-and-city-council/st9aY72DAvrWd1gULg8EDP/story.html
@Jack: That’s not really right.
Our republic is organized into a system of branches but not all governmental organizations need to be structured that way to be a “democracy.”
For example, ever since our (only) kid was old enough to use the remote, we’ve run the Reibman household as a democracy. Each member had one vote. Now that didn’t usually work out too well for the child but it was more of a democracy than our federal government is where (as Councilor Hess-Mahan reminded us) our president is not democratically elected but rather via electoral college.
Now many folks like the electoral college and want to keep it, but facts are facts, and the electoral college is “less democratic” than electing a president by popular vote.
By the same token good, smart, Newton citizens such as you can argue that they prefer our ward/at large system over a system where every voter gets to elect 100 percent of the council. I get it. That’s perfectly okay. But, facts are facts, and our current system is “less democratic” than one being proposed.
P.S. By the way, in the Reibman house we did not create a special system where our son had a disproportionate vote simply because he represented a distinct, otherwise undeserved, constituency. He just had his vote same as everyone else. And you can bet that had we had more kids, we would have undergone a swift charter review.
@Greg:
“he represented a distinct, otherwise undeserved, constituency”
Is that “undeserved” or “underserved”?
“He just had his vote same as everyone else. And you can bet that had we had more kids, we would have undergone a swift charter review.” Exactly. I’ve seen that sort of thing happen.
@Bruce. Both!
@Jack, thanks for the link. Damn, I am a good writer.
Yes, I do think that term limits are undemocratic. But they seem to have a lot of support. Enough that I have decided after 14 years of public service to term limit myself.
@Emily, I get it. I also get that while State Reps and State Senators vote on state matters, their votes do not carry equal weight. Would be odd if they did. Ditto US Congressmen and Senators. Carry on.
Ted,
You’ve been accused of being pro-density???
I’ve been accused of being dense. (On several levels).
@Greg — OK – to run with your Riebman household analogy, I assume your three-member council currently debates and deliberates on each remote decision, with each family member representing diverse viewpoints, and as such you arrive at the best decisions for your family with a process helps build mutual understanding and consensus over time.
Conversely you could now choose to elect a two-person family council, with each candidate elected 100% house-wide in a very democratic manner. You and your spouse would likely run and win on a slate supported by the special interest “parents” group.
Would the new smaller council be more democratic, effective, responsive, and transparent? It would certainly be more efficient as deliberations and debate could be eliminated if you and your spouse agreed on “Day 1”.
@Greg – I’m not sure “more democratic” is the right way to look at this argument. Ultimately both configurations are a representative democracy where each person has an equal number of councilors they can vote for (17 existing, 16 proposed). Under the current system a subset of representation is equally diffused among the eight ward councilors which would be moved to the at-large pool. That’s a really significant detail with consequences but not something I would consider more or less democratic – You’re just moving representation from one set of buckets into another without adjusting the amounts, each person still votes for an equal number of buckets.
It’s also a bit of a loaded question as you seem to be using “more democratic” and “better” interchangeably, just because a system is more democratic doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a -better- system. To piggy back a bit on Ted’s post, the Founding Fathers saw direct democracy as a danger that would result in mob rule and ultimately tyranny of the majority if unchecked. At a federal level we’re intentionally several steps removed from direct democracy – Senators are elected by state, Congresscritters by state district (or state) and President through the Electoral College (state with weights). No one gets to vote for all representatives and that’s generally a good thing, as it provides a check against a small number of cities or states from dominating the others through sheer numbers.
Now as to which system is more ideal, I think Ted has the right idea with proportional voting. 100% at-large has a very real risk of tyranny of the majority, although Newton is legally one city the villages that make up the city have very different needs and priorities – compare Nonantum to Waban for example. The current council composition is too far on the inefficient side but we absolutely need the check on the majority that ward councilors provide. Proportional voting would maintain that check but provide a more balanced weight to the majority compared to ward councilors or 100% at-large.
Patrick: Thanks for this very thoughtful comment. We agree on many things.
Our federal government is not a pure democracy, it’s a republic or representational democracy. Generally speaking, our federal representational democracy has worked pretty darn well (present days and some other times in our history excepted).
Newton is also a representational democracy. Both choices before voters this November (current charter or new charter) are representational democracies.
But, facts being facts, the new charter is indeed closer to a direct democracy (i.e. “more democratic”) than our present system because we’d all get to choose every city councilor, which not the same as saying it is the preferred or best choice for everyone.
As I’ve said, good smart people feel the ward system is worth defending. Other good smart people prefer the proposed change.
But, factually speaking, one choice is “more democratic” than the other.
That’s all I’m saying.
We have a political term for the type of political official who would replace our current local ward representative, as seen during the reconstruction period in the confederate states after the civil war: That representative was called a Carpet Bagger- A political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections. I think this recommendation is analogous to requesting us to allow a carpet bagger candidate into each ward here in Newton in lieu of a true local candidate representative. The issue isn’t just about the carpet bagger’s qualifications and how efficient they are. I believe that the majority of the local ward constituents want a representative that is locally vested in their concerns. It is personal, and it is in each constituent‘s backyard and their local neighborhood.
I believe this representation needs to be a democratic process. Democracy is not efficient. This usually requires neighborly involvement, compromise and dialogue with our local representative. This process usually requires more time to reach a consensus. Let’s get together in our common areas (village squares, village events, city hall, meeting houses, etc.) and discuss our concerns. Hopefully, we may resolve some issues and set forth plans to correct our shorts falls for a better future.
Our current charter has served us well for a very-very long time with only a few changes. I’m a believer in the idiom “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” I cannot think of a nicer city near us which has as many citizen features – I admit it, I am biased, because I live here. And that’s also why I moved here over 40 years ago.
@James Pacheco: Carpet baggers? Really? Newton is 18 square miles.
This charter change would be a major change to our local form of government. Most cities do not have this report’s recommended form of government. No State government has it, and our Federal government does not use it. In our case, this recommendation is to change our democratic representation from having one local ward councilor elected from each ward to having no local ward councilors [ in simple terms: To change from having local representation to not having any local representation ]. The number of councilors is not the real issue. This change would have all the councilors elected as councilors at large. In essence, your ward may never have a local representative. Most likely, only the wealthier wards will have the most representatives. So a minority group within a ward would virtually have a minimum or no chance of having a voice in Newton. Also, a candidate from a less wealthy ward would need to over-come the financial challenge of finding supporters throughout the city, since they cannot just depend on their local ward to be elected.
I simply find it very odd that should I detest an at-large councilor with ward residency requirements I can vote against them, but I cannot -run- against them. In fact, if no one from their ward steps up and runs against them, my opposition means nothing because they are unopposed on the ballot.
Also, I think that if I live in ward X, I can still collect signatures citywide, and get on the ward-X-at-large ballot, and then elected with not one signature or vote from within ward X.
It’s sort of a system of checks and balances, I guess. It still it seems much more convoluted than ward councilors are from wards and elected by ward, at large can live anywhere (at-large) and are elected from everywhere (at-large). My personal preference is for simpler systems, because I feel that being able to understand the system makes it more accessible to the voters (more democratic), but I couldn’t say that it is or is not more democratic from a political science perspective.
I believe the new proposal is more democratic in the sense that each resident is able to more effectively influence their government. It allows every voter to elect every city councilor, and I find that councilors really listen to residents that can vote for them. I do not find that they listen eight times as much to people in smaller districts.
Furthermore, I can’t understand those who are extolling the small d democratic virtues of our current system where the vast majority of councilors are uncontested every year, some have been uncontested for over a decade, and some never had a contest when they first took office.
@Adam I’m not sure what your point was about State Senators and State Reps votes having equal weight. My point was that neither are elected statewide, but they both get to vote on issues that affect the whole state. That is our system.
Councilor Norton:
That’s our system federally and statewide but it’s not the only possible system or the system used effectively by many municipalities.
Plus, do you really want to hold up the U.S. Congress as the ideal model for legislating these days?
Newton is 18.19 sq. miles. Massachusetts is 10,554 square miles. The U.S. is 3.797 million square miles. It’s daunting to think a member of the US House should represent all the people in a 3.797 million mile area or even a state rep. over 10,554 square miles. But less than twenty miles for all city councilors? That seems reasonable.
Did CC think that ballot size is overwhelming, and results in low voter turnout?
If so, how is that democratic? Maybe the new Charter should have provision of requiring every citizen to vote 🙂
If not, why do they think the voter turnout is low?
@Greg – If Newton is that small, residents should know the names of at least 1 Councillor from each ward. I dont know names of other Ward councillors, and I can guarantee you vast majority does not either.
18 sq miles does not mean homogeneity. The issues are diverse, and people have their lives to take care of. They dont have time to know all councillors from across 18 sq miles.
The current proposal has raised the bar for participation from ordinary regular citizens. I think it is certainly less democratic.
@Neil P: You can present many good reasons for having ward councilors and possibly sway me. But that’s not one of them (and neither is Councilor Norton’s argument “That’s the way Congress does it so we should too”..something I doubt even she really believes in 2017).
Yes, most residents probably can’t name one councilor from each ward (or the eight US Congressmen from Mass.). But those same folks probably can’t name their ward councilor or all three councilors from their ward either (or know the difference).
I predict with only 12 councilors name recognition would go way up.
@ Emily
The charter proposal is like the State Legislature & Senate structure in that with the proposal every Councilor is elected by equal groups of people. Today our City Council has Ward Councilors who are elected by 1/8 of the population and At-Large-Councilors who are elected by the entire city yet your votes are equal! So the proposed charter is to ensure that all Councilors are elected by an equal number of citizens. I am not sure why this concept is difficult to understand…as it is a fact that one cannot refute . Our current structure is an artifact of when we went from a bicameral to unicameral system without changing the number of citizensthat are able to elect each Councilor. In a nut shell you represent 1/8 of the city. Jake and Susan represent the whole city, yet your votes are equal when it comes to voting on items that always impact the entire city. Do you really see that being fair and democratic? As both Jake and Susan support the charter change, I would ask them to weigh in on this…
Marcia Johnson has a good point. The MA and Us house and senate are not similar to ward representation unless we were to get rid of all at-large councilors – which nobody has suggested yet.
@Marcia – Sens. Warren and Markey represent 6M people of MA, but have equal voice as the 40M of Californian that two senators represent.
The important point is the engagement at local level, for everyday citizen. The new charter proposal makes it very difficult for everyday person to keep tabs of their “12 councillors”, and I predict will not move the needle of voting participation.
Moving to a 100% at-large approach seems like a pretty good option for well-funded special interests to better influence the future of Newton.
To me, that seems like a recipe for more traffic and less green. Starts looking like Brookline and Boston without the mass transit options. I guess there’s always Vermont.
Jerry, let me be the first to suggest that we get rid of ALL at-large councilors. The discussion has convinced that all at-large is the way to go.
OCPF data does not support the idea that it is always more expensive to run at-large, and the data shows that some ward councilors raise lots of money, including $500 and $1,000 donations.
HOWEVER…let’s imagine a council composed only of councilors elected by one ward, and that it takes those councilors little money to get elected. That just makes it easier for special interests to “buy” an elected official…the price tag is lower.
@Marcia — First, let me say I believe Ward Councilors certainly take city-wide viewpoints, and Councilors At Large have more interest and familiarity with their own neighborhoods than the rest of the city. There may be situations where a Councilor at Large tells their ward residents to just vote them out if they don’t like their views, but those situations are few and far between.
But for argument’s sake, let’s take a hypothetical example of an issue where the interests of ward residents starkly diverge from the interests of the city, and where each councilor votes the interests of the majority of their constituency.
For numbers sake, let’s consider four different compositions of a 24-member council. In each case, each ward deserves net representation of 3 votes on the council in a representative democracy.
Scenario 1: Each ward has three Ward Councilors (rather than current mix). The ward in question gets their fair representative share of 3/24ths of the vote. They lose and the majority gets its way, but the ward residents get their viewpoints represented in council debate.
Scenario 2 (Current Council): Each ward has a diluted 1/8th voting influence on each of the 16 At-Large Councilors, 100% voting influence on their Ward Councilor, and 0% influence on the other 7 Ward Councilors (1/8*16 + 1 + 0*7=3). In this scenario, the ward gets 1/24th of the vote on their issue. They lose, and the majority gets its way, but the ward residents get their viewpoints represented in council debate.
Scenario 3: 100% At-Large city-wide voting gives the ward 0/24 of the vote. They get no representation, no discussion, and no debate.
Scenario 4: If you wish to argue that residency is representation, then there is a scenario where a ward can do well. With the commission’s proposal, you can have 5 councilors hail from a ward, and that ward can get 5/12th of the vote on their ward issue (if their resident councilors represent the ward rather than just reside there.
To me it appears that democracy dies across the four scenarios.
@Rhanna — The key point is that Ward Councilor races can be won more with grass roots support, door knocking, and constituent service than dollars.
There are roughly 30,000 households in the city. Are there any households that have more of those $250-$1000 contributions to city council races than others according to OCPF data? Is there one household of the 30,000 that has contributed enough so far over the last three election cycles to fully fund an entire city council race (assuming you think a race can be won for $8500)? Note that some households have multiple last names and include students attending college. Do you have a sense where these households stand on the proposed charter and retention of Ward representation? That could help test your financial theory.
You can do this search here https://www.ocpf.us/Reports/SearchItems by putting various city councilors into the recipient field.
@Greg wrote: But that’s not one of them (and neither is Councilor Norton’s argument “That’s the way Congress does it so we should too”..something I doubt even she really believes in 2017).
Take it from me Greg, I know my beliefs better than you do. Thanks for the condescension though.
Boston has 9 district councilors, 4 at-large councilors. Framingham just voted to make themselves a city and decided to have 9 district councilors, 2 at-large councilors. They even decided to go with district school committee members. Worcester moved to district councilors after the failure of their all at-large system, where all the councilors ended up coming from the wealthy part of the city. Lowell has an all at-large system, and in a city where nearly half the population is minority, every city councilor and every school committee member is white.
The change recommended by the charter commission will empower the wealthy and connected, which is why so many cities are moving away toward more district representation and less at-large representation.
Anyone who would claim that it costs the same to run citywide as within the ward only is insulting the intelligence of the voters. More lawn signs, more flyers, more postage… it’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
Many great comments.
100% of the voters in Lowell get to vote on 100% of their councilors. According to the lead on this thread that should be 100% democratic.
But it is not. 6 out of 9 councilors In Lowell reside in the well off Belvidere district. The lower income residents are disenfranchised by this approach.
Same in Ferguson where white, well offs run the city, while a majority of residents are not white.
Same in Framingham where all of the selectmen reside in just 2 precincts (well off) out of 18.
It goes on and on across America.
When all of the residents of a municipality can vote for all of the councilors, power flows inexorably to the well off locales.
Thus this idea that voting for 100% of the councilors is the most democratic is simply not borne out by the facts.
That is why, especially, the no residency at large councilors positions in Newton in the new charter should be rejected by voters with a resounding NO on charter changes in November.
No system is perfect. But we elected fellow residents to spend the past year and a half evaluating our City Charter, and their recommendations should be taken seriously.
Some folks fear their voices will go unheard unless Newton has ward-only councilors. I don’t find these arguments convincing. Apples-to-oranges comparisons to Lowell, which lacks ward residency requirements, or to Boston, where each City Council member represents 60,000+ households, are neither earnest nor helpful.
The arguments for ward-only councilor representation seem to advance ease-of-election for politicians under the guise of better representation. I would argue instead that ease-of-voting would lead to better civic engagement and representation.
Boston has 79,000 residents per district. Newton has 88,000 residents total. Boston is 90 square miles, and Newton is 18. District councilors elected at large gives voters more power, but it’s a model that would not work as well in Boston.
The comparison to Lowell is specious. Lowell has 9 city councilors elected at-large without residency requirement. No district representation.
Worcester moved away from a city council that, like Lowell’s, had no district representation. Their current council has 6 at-large without district residency requirement (the majority of the council), and 5 from districts elected only by the district. Each district has 37,000 residents. The city is 39 square miles.
Framingham hasn’t even implemented their city council yet, there’s no evidence for how well residents think it works.
The charter commission looked at all of these cities and more. We considered what made the most sense for Newton based on its unique characteristics. Newton has no racial enclaves, minorities are spread out around the city. And we’ve had 2/3 of our council elected from the ward by voters citywide for the last 120 years. Making 2/3 of the council answer to the ward only would be a radical shift.
We proposed to retain ward representation while having all councilors elected by all voters in order to ensure every neighborhood has a voice while avoiding parochialism.
It’s a well-researched and crafted spin line, but it’s completely misleading to say that the proposal “retains” ward representation. In fact, it’s about as close to a flat out lie as you can get, since the definition of Ward representation to virtually anyone in newton means a Ward-elected Ward Councilor.
When you can get elected by the city, without the support of your Ward, your Ward is not being represented.
Please stop the lies and misrepresentation. It’s disgraceful. And I believe it shows desperation.
This fall, vote against getting rid of Ward representation. Vote NO..with enthusiasm.
There is no relationship between how a city council seat is structured and whether a city councilor is subject to influence from donors. Someone who wants to buy influence will make donations to elected officials. A $1,000 donation would buy more influence from someone who has to spend less money to get elected.
In Newton, some councilors elected by one ward only have won the seat primarily by knocking on doors. Others, like Emily, also spent a lot of money to win a closely contested seat. There is no wealth distinction in Newton between councilors elected by voters citywide vs. the ward only. More and less affluent folks hold both seats. Elections data indicates that newcomers just run for the seat that is open, they don’t typically start with the ward seat because it’s easier to win.
@Rhanna wrote: “The comparison to Lowell is specious. Lowell has 9 city councilors elected at-large without residency requirement. No district representation.”
The charter commission proposal has 4 out of 12 councilors being elected from anywhere in the city, with no residency requirement.
There could be 5 city councilors out of 12 all from the same ward.
Not specious at all; rather, spot on.
@Rhanna just stated “There is no wealth distinction in Newton between councilors elected by voters citywide vs. the ward only.”
How exactly did you form this opinion? Please refer us to the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.
@Rhanna also stated “Elections data indicates that newcomers just run for the seat that is open”.
If this is your argument to support such a terrible Charter proposal, I’d encourage you to deeply rethink your position. Perhaps we need to create a system that encourages more of our accomplished and committed residents like Jess Barton to run for office? Unlike what your data suggests, Jess didn’t sit around and wait for a seat to open. She knew that she had more to offer the City than did her competitors, and because she has courage, she gave running for office her best effort. Based on the outcome of that election, in my opinion, we should be working to create a system that doesn’t require a fancy last name and deep family pockets or an entrenched political establishment behind you to win.
I’d finally note that the arguments of Bryan and Rhanna re: district representation need to end.
Fraud is often defined as “a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.”
Rhanna wants us to believe that the proposed Charter has the quality of district representation. However, she knows or should know that residing within a district does not in of itself mean that a representative represents said district. To which I ask, where in the proposed Charter does it specifically enumerate the duty of representing your district?
I too lean towards favoring keeping ward councillors – but y’all have got to take a deep breath.
This thread has now moved to “lies” “deception” “fraud”. How about sticking to “I disagree and here’s why”. Sometimes people may come to a different conclusion than you without being engaged in a nefarious plot to subvert our democracy.
What Jerry said.
I have no way of knowing about the personal wealth of candidates or elected officials, but how much money a candidate raises and spends on a campaign is public information on the OCPF website. Other than the 2015 ward councilor race, receipts and expenditures for at-large and ward councilor seats are similar.
@Jerry-
My opinions regarding “deception” is in specific reference to the phrasing and use of “Ward representation”… not to the ill-conceived proposed construct itself.
The proposed construct is simply bad and voters should proudly and enthusiastically vote NO.
What Jerry said.
IMHO, posts that attack the character of anyone for any reason should be deleted.
IMHO, posts that make unsubtantiated claims should also be deleted. Especially, if it is a CC member who is making those claims.
I agree w @Jane as well.
Mayoral election included, there is arguably no more important decision facing Newton voters than November’s charter vote. And I would hope that Village 14 will play an constructive role in this conversation.
But this tread has stopped being constructive.
Comments are closed.