Thanks for this excellent summary. However, as someone who is decidedly not a fan of multi-member districts, I'd only point out that under the Charter Commission's four three-member-districts approach, the "representative-per-citizen" ratio is not the same as the "citizens-per-representative" ratio. This is because In a multi-member district, each representative still (supposedly) represents the entire district.
So while there would be three representatives for 150k Portland citizens, each representative would still represent the full 150k citizens. And while each citizen would theoretically have three phone numbers to call for help, no single representative would be specifically accountable. Plus, each citizen would also swim in a constituency that's three times larger than a single-member district would be.
This mismatch leads to all sorts of governance and elections questions that haven't been fully considered. What happens if the three representatives are in conflict about district matters? Or worse, what if the three representatives run as a slate and vote in concert on all things? What happens if one representative does all the work while the other representatives deflect? What if they all deflect? The City of Baltimore got rid of their failed multi-member districts for these reasons.
I am convinced that Portland will immediately regret multi-member districts if they're approved. The fact is that a single representative held accountable by voters in a single, neighborhood-scale district is the best representation for cities.
Thanks for this excellent summary. However, as someone who is decidedly not a fan of multi-member districts, I'd only point out that under the Charter Commission's four three-member-districts approach, the "representative-per-citizen" ratio is not the same as the "citizens-per-representative" ratio. This is because In a multi-member district, each representative still (supposedly) represents the entire district.
So while there would be three representatives for 150k Portland citizens, each representative would still represent the full 150k citizens. And while each citizen would theoretically have three phone numbers to call for help, no single representative would be specifically accountable. Plus, each citizen would also swim in a constituency that's three times larger than a single-member district would be.
This mismatch leads to all sorts of governance and elections questions that haven't been fully considered. What happens if the three representatives are in conflict about district matters? Or worse, what if the three representatives run as a slate and vote in concert on all things? What happens if one representative does all the work while the other representatives deflect? What if they all deflect? The City of Baltimore got rid of their failed multi-member districts for these reasons.
I am convinced that Portland will immediately regret multi-member districts if they're approved. The fact is that a single representative held accountable by voters in a single, neighborhood-scale district is the best representation for cities.