Why did they leave 2 seats at large?
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...E/908269994/-1
Why did they leave 2 seats at large?
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...E/908269994/-1
Since this was crafted by a politician, one word comes to mind: compromise
The one problem I have against this proposal is that the city council president would be chosen between the two highest at-large votegeter.
If this passes, won't it undermine the Charter Commission's ability to have all of the Council Members voted in by district? If one of the at-large members seat is vacated, the city will still have to spend 3 million dollars for a special election. That's not good.
In meeting many of the candidates, I believe that most charter candidates are advocates for council by districts and proponents of the hybrid system. Myself, I see advantages to both a district only system and a hybrid system like Prop. D.
With a district only council, I believe that there is the potential for the council to become fragmented and too focused on their own districts, perhaps losing sight of downtown and the city as a whole. I believe that, ideally, the hybrid system will grant the council a more holistic perspective and simultaneously allow voters to democratically select their council president, while, through the addition of districts, building a more accountable and responsive legislative branch.
Nonsense. The rest of the city needs attention. Losing sight of Downtown would be the best thing the city could do.Quote:
Originally Posted by andylinn
The Charter Commission has a 3-year reign starting in January '10. The outside time-frame allows that the New Charter will not be in front of the voters until the fall of 2014. Nothing says that the Charter Commission will include District representation. In fact, the new Charter Commission can decide to not change the current Charter at all. The next scheduled Charter update is in 2019. The 2019 Charter Commission will also have 3 years to review and advise.
That means there is a possibility District representation will be off the ballot until - maybe 2022.
On the cannard of Special Elections...we will always have Special Elections until which time someone can insure that people will stop dying in office or going to hoosgow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
No kiddin' no one has ever really thought about the possibility that downtown is empty is because many neighborhoods are in shambles. You need to have strong neighborhoods to support a downtown. There is only so much you can rely on spectator sports and casinos. These don't fill offices and stores. People want to live near work, and if the neighborhoods are not attractive for residents then the downtown won't have a real base for jobs.
Detroit needs jobs. Without a tax base, the city can't provide the police protection, garbage pickup, basic cleanup and services for the neighborhoods. As you say, people like to live near their jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
The People of Detroit should vote HELL NO on council by districts. There will be NO EVIL WARD system in Detroit period.
This link contains the language of the ballot proposal:
http://councilbydistricts.org/files/...t_election.pdf
I look at the two at-large seats as an opportunity for the voters to directly elect the president and president pro tempore. When candidates run for the two at-large seats, voters will determine whether or not they have the experience and knowledge to be elected to these positions. That is definitely better than the current system.
I fail to see how electing representatives by district is evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny
Electing council members from different geographic regions allows the voters to hold different members responsible for the fate of different areas of the city.
Considering how blighted some of the northern and eastern neighborhoods are, this will be a good thing.
[quote=4real;61621]Irish Mafia gangsta, I believe that the reason being is that the neighborhoods have representation [[as well as the people who don't live in neighborhoods kidding)
This will also give someone a chance to get more leverage if they are stuck with a schmuck in their district, more accountability at different levels and locations.
The only thing that's going to get rid of "career politicians" is term limits. Personally, I don't have a problem with people who choose as their vocation to serve their community through making and encouraging good public policy. Its lazy voters that allow themselves to be led around like sheep that I could do without.
This is how that post was supposed to look. I'm a little new at this. :oThe only thing that's going to get rid of "career politicians" is term limits. Personally, I don't have a problem with people who choose as their vocation to serve their community through making and encouraging good public policy. Its lazy voters that allow themselves to be led around like sheep that I could do without.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4real
The voters are not lazy, selecting nine candidates is overwhelming. It takes a lot of time to research 168 candidates. More importantly, it is practically impossible to select the best nine. You can’t fault the voters who find 3 or 4 candidates to support, and don’t vote for all nine. How do you decide who is the ninth best candidate? Some candidates are elected because they are supported by the voters, and others are selected at random because of all the votes that were not cast.Quote:
Originally Posted by mam2009
Anyone who voted for less than nine council members should support council by districts.
My point was that districts won't get rid of "career politicians". That's what term limits are for.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48202
I support districts, but not because voting for nine is overwhelming. I'm a firm believer that a citizen should do their research and only vote for city council candidates they are familiar with. If that is one, then vote for that one. The city council is supposed to be the citizens' representative so [[until we get districts), don't choose someone whom you're not reasonably sure will represent YOU well. If you're considering an incumbent, watch Channel 10 on Comcast or the live internet feeds of the council meetings. I just say, for God's sake, please don't let the local media be your sole source of information. If voters are considering non-incumbents, don't just go off of the flyers they pass out. If their truly worthy, then they've probably built up a reputation that can be indepently verified. No more lazy voting or we'll get more Reaves, Conyers, Watsons, etc. Detroit voters blew it BIG TIME last time.