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.


Please note this login is to submit events or press releases. Use this page here to login for your Independent subscription

Not a member? Sign up here.