The Co-Chair of the Portland Charter Commission explains why her commission's proposals, which are facing organized political opposition, are right for Portland
Vote-by-mail is a poor comparison here. Before voters approved it statewide, it had a decade of trials in school board and local elections and proved its value over time. It was not a big reach or an untested concept by the time it was enacted.
By contrast, the "single transferable vote" version of ranked choice voting included in the proposed amendment is a big leap into territory where council seats will be awarded to candidates who secure just 25%+1 of the vote in the initial round of voting, followed by the transfer of "surplus votes" from top vote getters to lesser vote getters in subsequent rounds. Unlike the centering effect of ranked choice voting to secure majority outcomes, this process will have a splintering effect. And it's not a process in use in any major city in the U.S., mush less one that has proven itself in Oregon.
Portland sorely needs a change in its charter to do away with the commission form of government and the dysfunction it has brought. But that change has been overloaded with complicated, contrived and untested changes in our elections in this package. The election system we have now is not perfect, but it's pretty good -- non-partisan, attracting large fields of candidates, with runoffs to determine majority winners. And it has managed to elect three persons of color to the five-member council. Yes, district elections would be an improvement. And using ranked choice voting to determine majority winners is fine where you have more than two candidates. But the overriding problem to be solved is one of governance. And what's proposed here is a weak mayor, strong council form of government (arguably with new problems of its own) combined with an election system that is likely to worsen rather than improve the ability to reach consensus and get things done.
Well said, Debra. I am pleased by, and support, what the Charter Review Commission has come up with. And, yes, all the pieces fit together. I am especially pleased that multi-member districts are included. This has been shown to allow representation by various groups, rather than always representation by only the dominant group in a district - as single-member districts do.
In fact, if we had proportional representation on a federal level we would not have the divisions we now see. Almost every other advanced country in the world uses it. The only reason the U.S. does not is because our Constitution was written before PR was invented in the mid-19th Century! I look forward to having PR, multi-member districts grow locally throughout the country, and, eventually, to the state and, someday, national, level.
As always, the rationale from Charter Commissioners for the three-councilors-per-district is ill-considered and thin. "Three councilors who are local to our region and know our neighborhood well"? Really? The overly-large districts will be the size of Salem or Eugene. How would councilors know *any* neighborhood well? Why not much smaller, single-member districts where knowing a neighborhood well is actually possible? Like every other major city in the country?
Baltimore, the last major city to have multimember districts repealed them 20 years ago and never looked back. They were a well-recognized failure for accountability and responsiveness, and groups ranging from League of Women Voters to ACORN to unions to environmental groups banded together to replace them with smaller single-member districts that perform infinitely better.
Portland may have a "long history of blazing its own trails", but generally those trails have been moving forward. Blazing a trail to adopt a known failure for local governance is not what Portland needs to be known for.
Baltimore's multimember districts used Bloc voting, so the same 50%+1 could elect all of the representatives from a district. That's very different from proportional representation proposed by the Commission.
I'll just refer you to my response to Donna below. Electing people at 25%+1 ain't gonna save you. In fact, it'll be worse than Baltimore -- the districts will be even bigger than Baltimore's were, and the political incentives for accountability, responsiveness and quality governance are even further removed.
The Commission’s proposal is to have majority rule but also fair (proportional) representation. The truth is under our current plurality voting system, candidates can get elected with less than 50% of the vote (e.g. Wheeler in 2020) but the result is winner-take-all. The Commission’s proposal for proportional rank choice voting in multi-member districts provides for both majority rule and minority representation on the Council. We need this type of innovation and sharing power in Portland and in our democracy more broadly.
Baltimore is a poor example; it is misused and does not reflect the PR situation we are considering. Single-member districts means the dominant group in that district ALWAYS will win an election. Multi-member districts allow for multiple groups to be represented. BTW, the League of Women Voters now supports proportional representation and supports these Charter recommendations. I am a member [but, I am not speaking for them here.]
Why do people keep saying this? It doesn't reflect the PR situation, but it EXACTLY reflects the four years of district governance Portland will get between elections.
Like Baltimore, the fact that you'll be, by definition, electing three people *who run against each other* for reelection rather than for separate seats, PR will simply magnify the structural problems in multimember districts: Councilors will hide from responsibility, deflect workload, shift blame for bad news, and try to steal the spotlight for any good news. There's nothing about PR and Portland that will change these political fundamentals.
So, like Baltimore, if you have a poorly performing councilor, you have no opportunity for an up-or-down accountability vote to rid yourselves of bad representation. In fact, in Portland, where the threshold to win a seat will be even lower, getting rid of poor performing incumbents is even harder than it was in Baltimore.
If PR and less-than-majority elections an overriding consideration, fine. But at least acknowledge the trade-offs you're making. And for goodness sake, stop the overpromising when single-member districts will undeniably perform better for neighborhood-scale problems.
Vote-by-mail is a poor comparison here. Before voters approved it statewide, it had a decade of trials in school board and local elections and proved its value over time. It was not a big reach or an untested concept by the time it was enacted.
By contrast, the "single transferable vote" version of ranked choice voting included in the proposed amendment is a big leap into territory where council seats will be awarded to candidates who secure just 25%+1 of the vote in the initial round of voting, followed by the transfer of "surplus votes" from top vote getters to lesser vote getters in subsequent rounds. Unlike the centering effect of ranked choice voting to secure majority outcomes, this process will have a splintering effect. And it's not a process in use in any major city in the U.S., mush less one that has proven itself in Oregon.
Portland sorely needs a change in its charter to do away with the commission form of government and the dysfunction it has brought. But that change has been overloaded with complicated, contrived and untested changes in our elections in this package. The election system we have now is not perfect, but it's pretty good -- non-partisan, attracting large fields of candidates, with runoffs to determine majority winners. And it has managed to elect three persons of color to the five-member council. Yes, district elections would be an improvement. And using ranked choice voting to determine majority winners is fine where you have more than two candidates. But the overriding problem to be solved is one of governance. And what's proposed here is a weak mayor, strong council form of government (arguably with new problems of its own) combined with an election system that is likely to worsen rather than improve the ability to reach consensus and get things done.
Well said, Debra. I am pleased by, and support, what the Charter Review Commission has come up with. And, yes, all the pieces fit together. I am especially pleased that multi-member districts are included. This has been shown to allow representation by various groups, rather than always representation by only the dominant group in a district - as single-member districts do.
In fact, if we had proportional representation on a federal level we would not have the divisions we now see. Almost every other advanced country in the world uses it. The only reason the U.S. does not is because our Constitution was written before PR was invented in the mid-19th Century! I look forward to having PR, multi-member districts grow locally throughout the country, and, eventually, to the state and, someday, national, level.
As always, the rationale from Charter Commissioners for the three-councilors-per-district is ill-considered and thin. "Three councilors who are local to our region and know our neighborhood well"? Really? The overly-large districts will be the size of Salem or Eugene. How would councilors know *any* neighborhood well? Why not much smaller, single-member districts where knowing a neighborhood well is actually possible? Like every other major city in the country?
Baltimore, the last major city to have multimember districts repealed them 20 years ago and never looked back. They were a well-recognized failure for accountability and responsiveness, and groups ranging from League of Women Voters to ACORN to unions to environmental groups banded together to replace them with smaller single-member districts that perform infinitely better.
Portland may have a "long history of blazing its own trails", but generally those trails have been moving forward. Blazing a trail to adopt a known failure for local governance is not what Portland needs to be known for.
Baltimore's multimember districts used Bloc voting, so the same 50%+1 could elect all of the representatives from a district. That's very different from proportional representation proposed by the Commission.
I'll just refer you to my response to Donna below. Electing people at 25%+1 ain't gonna save you. In fact, it'll be worse than Baltimore -- the districts will be even bigger than Baltimore's were, and the political incentives for accountability, responsiveness and quality governance are even further removed.
The Commission’s proposal is to have majority rule but also fair (proportional) representation. The truth is under our current plurality voting system, candidates can get elected with less than 50% of the vote (e.g. Wheeler in 2020) but the result is winner-take-all. The Commission’s proposal for proportional rank choice voting in multi-member districts provides for both majority rule and minority representation on the Council. We need this type of innovation and sharing power in Portland and in our democracy more broadly.
Baltimore is a poor example; it is misused and does not reflect the PR situation we are considering. Single-member districts means the dominant group in that district ALWAYS will win an election. Multi-member districts allow for multiple groups to be represented. BTW, the League of Women Voters now supports proportional representation and supports these Charter recommendations. I am a member [but, I am not speaking for them here.]
Why do people keep saying this? It doesn't reflect the PR situation, but it EXACTLY reflects the four years of district governance Portland will get between elections.
Like Baltimore, the fact that you'll be, by definition, electing three people *who run against each other* for reelection rather than for separate seats, PR will simply magnify the structural problems in multimember districts: Councilors will hide from responsibility, deflect workload, shift blame for bad news, and try to steal the spotlight for any good news. There's nothing about PR and Portland that will change these political fundamentals.
So, like Baltimore, if you have a poorly performing councilor, you have no opportunity for an up-or-down accountability vote to rid yourselves of bad representation. In fact, in Portland, where the threshold to win a seat will be even lower, getting rid of poor performing incumbents is even harder than it was in Baltimore.
If PR and less-than-majority elections an overriding consideration, fine. But at least acknowledge the trade-offs you're making. And for goodness sake, stop the overpromising when single-member districts will undeniably perform better for neighborhood-scale problems.