Option C

Monday, July 7, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

In the discussion of city-wide elections as opposed to district elections, we do not need to have an either/or choice. We need to find a compromise in these discussions. Unfortunately, “compromise” seems to have become a dirty word in politics these days.

Here is my suggestion: Divide the city into three districts. Call them A, B, and C. Then divide the city again into three districts. Call them 1, 2, and 3. District 1 would encompass half of District A and half of District B. District 2 would be half of District B and half of District C. District 3 would include half of District C and half of District A. Each voter and each location in the city would have two council members — district elections. But the areas would be much broader than in non-overlapping district elections — not quite city-wide, but whole thirds of the city.

I have presented this suggestion to several government officials and candidates, but with discouraging nonresponses. I don’t feel that this is because the problem is unrecognized but rather that a solution is not wanted.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

As with every other American, I get confused if the you start dividing the big numbers with the Smaller Letters....Oh!..Look!...Kittens play the Piano on Twitter!

dou4now (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2014 at 5:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is getting weird.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2014 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A hybrid-hybrid district configuration like this still will not remedy the Racially Polarized Voting finding by the courts.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 10, 2014 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: