|
| |
 Ballot Issues Report
November 1995
City of Seattle Charter Amendment No. 1
Election of City Council Members by District
Seattle Charter Amendment No. 1 would change the election of Seattle
City Council members from an at-large system to a district system.
Currently, council members are elected "at-large," with
voters city-wide voting on all nine council members. This proposal
would have the current city council create nine districts and
have each district elect one council member starting in 1997.
Council members would be required to live in the district in which
they run.
Amendment proponents believe that changing to a district system
would provide more accountability by council members to the citizens
of Seattle. Proponents argue that by having each council member
elected from a district, council members would be more responsive
to neighborhood issues and citizen concerns because he or she
would be more familiar with the priorities and problems of their
own district. Citizens would have a single council member to
contact regarding issues before the council or to complain to
about city services.
Proponents also claim that this proposal would provide more diverse
viewpoints on the council. They say they feel "out of touch"
with the current council, and point to the unanimous decisions
by the council to place recent city bond and levy measures that
then failed at the polls as an indication that current council
members all represent the same viewpoint and are not representative
of the citizens of Seattle. Proponents also suggest that the
City's Comprehensive Plan, which focuses additional growth in
urban villages throughout the city, is not reflective of what
people want or what can realistically be achieved.
Finally, supporters also believe elections of council members
would be, less expensive, more focused, and allow for personal
campaigning. They argue that because candidates today must run
city-wide campaigns to get elected, they must spend up to $150,000
on mass media. Under a district system, each candidate would only
need to reach 60,000 people instead of 500,000, which would make
it possible for people with more limited resources to run. Proponents
also argue that covering a district instead of the entire city
would allow more "retail" campaigning conducted in neighborhood
meetings, at coffee hours, and by going door-to-door.
Opponents believe that a district system would give voters less
of a voice, especially if they are dissatisfied with their current
representation. They point out that in dealing with constituent
issues today, citizens can bring their concerns to any of nine
council members. Furthermore, depending on the staggered terms,
Seattle voters currently decide on four or five council members
every two years. Under a district system, they would vote for
their one district council member only every four years, and they
would have less opportunity to change the overall composition
of the City Council.
Opponents believe that district-elected council members would
develop a narrow, parochial perspective, being only interested
in issues affecting or benefiting their own neighborhoods, to
the detriment of other areas. They argue it would be difficult
to address special needs for city services or facilities in a
certain district if other districts don't have a similar need
or benefit. Opponents fear this could lead to "horse-trading"
or other back-room political activities.
Amendment opponents also say that being effective as a City Council
member is not only managing the city and its delivery of services
to Seattle neighborhoods, but also working with other jurisdictions
that affect Seattle's quality of life. Having council members
who run and are elected city-wide gives them more experience,
knowledge, and credibility in dealing with King County, the Port
of Seattle, the Seattle School Board, the State Legislature, and
other jurisdictions that affect the City of Seattle.
Finally, the opponents claim that having an at-large system helps
the working relationship between council members since all share
a similar experience of a city-wide campaign, have the same constituency,
and can focus on issues, not district competition or infighting.
Since all council members have the interests of the city as
a whole in mind, they can work on different issues according to
their expertise and interest.
Many supporters of this Charter Amendment feel out of touch with
government, dissatisfied with their current situation, and want
change in how government does business. However, the Municipal
League believes the best way to do that is by electing different
representation, not by changing the way we elect the City Council.
The League does not feel the proponents have adequately justified
why the Seattle election system needs changing and how this proposal
would make the situation better. For example, the failure of bond
and tax measures at the polls, such as the Public Safety Building
and Library Bonds, may be an indication of problems with those
proposals or voter anti-tax sentiment, rather than a call for
a new form of representation. (Other examples of failed proposals,
such as the Regional Transit Plan, Seattle Schools bonds, and
a new baseball stadium, were put on the ballot by the Regional
Transit Authority, the Seattle School Board, and the Metropolitan
King County Council respectively.)
One significant benefit is that smaller districts may allow for
campaigns closer to individual voters. But the trade-off with
a district system is that voters would be able to vote the council
members for their district only once every four-year term. Today,
you can vote for four or five council members each election.
However, the greatest risk to the Charter amendment is that district
representation does not guarantee more effective or accountable
government. District-elected council members could defend parochial
interests, engage in "pork-barrel" politics, or obstruct
proposals of benefit to other parts of the city or to the city
as a whole.
The Municipal League recommends that you vote NO on the
City Charter Amendment. The best way to get the attention of the
Seattle City Council, make them aware of your neighborhood concerns,
and change the direction the city is headed is to vote for the
candidates that represent your needs.
A charter amendment is the equivalent of changing the constitution
for the City of Seattle. This amendment changes the way we elect
our city government, a major step that should not take place without
a considerable amount of public discussion and consideration.
If you are interested in more information regarding this issue,
the Municipal League Foundation's Issue Watch newsletter
from September 1994 outlines different options used nationwide
for electing city councils, including district systems, at-large
systems, proportional representation, and other models. It also
presents different opinions of the advantages and disadvantages
of each system.
Back to Ballot Issues
copyright (C) 1995, The Municipal League of King County
|
