Proportional Representation Bad For Cincinnati
Christopher Smitherman (known on this blog as Sillyman) and his groupies -- the SMLPs -- never stop attacking people who disagree with them on issues.
They've spent the last few months attacking former Mayor Dwight Tillery, current Mayor Mark Mallory, City Councilwoman Laketa Cole, and the entire Cincinnati City Council, accusing them of killing little Black babies by rejecting a grant to establish a local Office of Minority Health that might have helped improve care for the city's black residents. (See, "Charges fly over grant refusal.")
Well, they've released another press release (which is posted here at The Cincinnati Beacon) and this time they attack Councilman Jeff Berding for daring to tell the truth about their ballot initiative to return proportional representation to Cincinnati.
From the press release:
In Councilman Berding’s article in the Business Courier, he called the ballot issue for Proportional Representation (PR) un-American. He wrote that extremists will be elected if Proportional Representation (Issue 8) wins. He also insinuated that Proportional Representation is not democracy. Berding has a history of misleading our community for his own personal gain; not just the African American community. Berding has misled City and County residents as well. There’s nothing more American--nothing more democratic--than to go out and collect 15,000 signatures to put any issue, including Proportional Representation, on the ballot. There was no picketing. The Cincinnati NAACP hired a lawyer, the members spent the entire summer canvassing the city to meet the petition requirements established by the Board of Elections. The 93 year old Cincinnati civil rights organization was successful! There is nothing more insulting that Berding could say about the Cincinnati NAACP members than to use code words to describe the members’ actions as un-American and undemocratic. He is simply spewing fear to the white readers of the Courier. Who do you think he is talking about when he used the term “extremists”? Proportional Representation allows 10% of voters to earn a seat at the table. Berding doesn’t want to hear from those voices.
Berding has a point: PR is un-American and non-Democratic. PR is also bad for the Black community and disenfranchises voters. The people pushing PR are doing so for selfish reasons. And many of the people who support PR are hypocrites.
Think back to the presidential election of 2000 and the Florida recount. Remember people screaming "Count Every Vote!"
What about 2004. People still claim former Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell disenfranchised people and didn't count every vote because, to him, every voter didn't count.
I remember like it was yesterday our good friend, Justin Jeffre, making the following point:
In 2004, your corporate Democrat, John Edwards swore that they would “make sure every vote counts this time”. That was right before Kerry conceded despite being made aware that there were serious problems with the 2004 election in Ohio.
Congressman John Conyers followed up on the investigations started by the Green Party and election protection teams. (Yeah, Greens had to demand the recount and there were some convictions because of illegal activities.)
The Conyers report “What went wrong in Ohio” was based on the work of Green Party activists and documented the massive and “unprecedented disenfranchisement of African American voters in the state of Ohio”. Conyers confirmed that he’s still very concerned about the integrity of our elections in my recent interview with him. [source: comment #13.]
Well, many of the same people who purportly believed in 2000 and 2004 that EVERY VOTE COUNTS and we should COUNT EVERY VOTE now think differently. They ask us to adopt the PR system in Cincinnati, a system in which every vote doesn't count.
How would the PR system work in Cincinnati? Let's look at the NAACP's website:
Under the Proposed PR voting system for Cincinnati City Council Elections:
- Cincinnati voters will rank in numerical order up to nine Cincinnati City Council candidates according to their "preference" of whom they would like to see selected.
- Your vote will be counted for your first-choice candidate if it can be used to help elect that candidate. If your [first-choice] vote cannot be used to help elect your first-choice candidate, it will be transferred(1) to the highest of your other candidate choices that your vote can help.
You still get nine votes, right? Well, will your vote be counted for your 2nd-place candidate? 3rd-place? And what happens if my 1st-place vote can't be used to help elect a candidate? Is that vote counted?
The simple answer to all the questions is, every vote doesn't count and every vote won't be counted. Under the PR system, you could have 50,000 people vote and all 50,000 of them could cast their 3rd-place vote for Barack Obama but he would lose to someone who got 5,001 votes.
The NAACP press release attacks Jeff Berding for things that have nothing to do with PR -- his job with the Bengals, his support for the jail, etc. -- and it distorting his comments. Tomorrow I'll try to post the entire letter from Berding, but, until then, just know that I've read the Business Courier article and can tell you, my faithful readers, that Berding's comments were about the PR initiative, not about the NAACP or the people who collected signatures. Berding never said or implied that the process used to put PR on the ballot was un-American.
So, why would Sillyman distort Berding's views? Why would he send out a press release full of things about Berding that are irrelevant and unrelated to the issue of PR? Its because the NAACP senses a weakness in their proposal. They can't win a debate on merits. So, they'd rather make the discussion about Berding or personalities or Mallory or Tim Burke or historic racism or Ted Berry. They'd rather talk about everything except PR and what impact it would have on elections in Cincinnati today.
For the record, no one disputes that the NAACP had every right to gather signatures and place PR on the ballot and no one disparages them for their efforts. The NAACP, however, can't seem to get a handle on the fact that now that the issue is on the ballot, people, including Berding and Mallory and Burke have a right to disagree with them on the issue and a right to campaign against PR. Voters have a right to vote against PR if they so choose, and it doesn't make them be against Barack Obama (what a stupid argument that was -- you can't vote against PR unless you are against Obama) or against Black people or even against the NAACP. From what I've seen, anyone who has dared disagree with the NAACP has been attacked and accused of being against the Black community. Puhlease.
Not only is PR un-American because every vote doesn't count, it is also bad for the Black community. Blacks are nearly 50% of the population. PR favors small minorities. If PR is brought back to Cincinnati it will almost certainly result in Blacks being underrepresented on Council.
Under the current system, my friend Tom Brinkman, can't get elected. His views don't appeal to enough people. He is an ultra-conservative Republican. And he doesn't have a ton of money. But under PR, Brinkman could conceivably put together a coalition of pro-life people and Eastside residents who feel underrepresented on Council, convince them to give him their #1 vote, and quite possibly get elected to Council. Remember, if 30,000 people go to the polls, all you need is about 3,000 1st-place votes to win.
Melva Gweyn, Mary Kuhl and Pete Witte -- radical extremists with a dangerous agenda -- can't get elected under the current system. But under PR they might be able to coordinate their efforts and get elected on a pro-FOP, anti-Section 8, pro-Westside platform. (Gweyn and Kuhl would certainly throw in a heavy dose of racism too.)
Part of the reason Brinkman, Gweyn, Kuhl, and Witte can't win now is because they need at least some Black votes to get elected. They also need some votes from Democrats. This isn't the case under PR.
You might wonder why PR is being pushed now and who is pushing it. You've got a couple of Black people who didn't win in the 2007 and 2005 elections and they think they could win in 2009 or 2011 under PR. (Sillyman, Charlie Winburn, Sam Malone, Damon Lynch III.)
You've also got some 3rd-party types who haven't been able to win under the 9x system and they think they can win under PR. Some of these people have thought about running or been encouraged to run but haven't done it because they know they can't win. (Justin Jeffre, Dan LaBotz, Josh Krekler.)
Many of the 3rd-party folks also like PR because it weakens the influence of the major parties. PR certainly would lessen the Dems influence.
But, you ask, aren't Winburn and Malone and Brinkman members of the Republican Party? Why would they support a system that weakens the GOP's influence? And, if Sillyman wanted to run for Council again and get elected and the party has an impact on who wins and loses, why wouldn't he just focus on getting an endorsement from the Dems in 2009 or 2011? Yes, Winburn, Malone and Brinkman are Republicans and they are good Republicans, but PR could be good for them as individuals, even if it is bad for the party, so, what's a good politician to do? And, yes, Sillyman could try to get an endorsement from the Dems, but he couldn't get one today based on his relationship with Burke and others in the party. He could get around that by organizing a takeover of the party or working to get enough people in the party to have influence in who runs the party, but putting PR on the ballot is a much easier task than getting people elected as representatives of the party in large enough numbers to have an impact and make a change.
15 comments:
Better Ballot for Cincinnati is not Smitherman's, nor the NAACP's tool. We are independent, and nonpartisan, and we have former mayor Bobbie Sterne as our treasurer, and Bill Woods of Common Cause on our board. We are endorsed by Jim Tarbell, Marian Spencer, Pastor Damon Lynch III, Charles Judd, Representative Tyrone Yates, Representative Tom Brinkman, and many other individuals from our community who care about representation.
It is no surprise the Democratic Party leadership is opposed to PR. People seldom voluntarily give up their power and influence when they attain it. We see this all the time with dictatorships in the world. This is the reason we use term limits a lot in America.
But who really pulls the strings of the Democratic Party? Does Proctor and Gamble, Citibank, the Cincinnati Reds, the Cincinnati Bengals, or some other business interests who control them via donations?
The Republican Party also opposes PR, and both parties opposed it in 1956 when the 5th repeal attempt was successful.
The truth is, they like having a duopoly. When the voters are upset, feeling like neither choice represents them, people like to have an alternative and more choices. Unforatunately, free market competition is only promoted in business and is opposed in politics. How ironic it is we should have 18 places we can get a hamburger, yet only two choices when picking those who will tax and regulate our lives.
Berding supported giving millions in corporate welfare to the Reds to build them a new stadium. He did reject a grant to help protect African American babies. Berding also came in second last, so I can see why he is scared of PR. He was not well liked in his own party, let alone the community as a whole. I collected 1200 of those signatures to put PR on the ballot and have talked with 3000 Cincinnati voters minimum. Never did Berding's name come up as a favorite in any of those conversations.
Better Ballot for Cincinnati requests the people of Cincinnati support PR and vote YES on issue 8. A Yes vote will ensure better representation of women, minorities, ensure we have a lot of choice and diversity of choices on the ballot, and increase voter turnout. PR increases voter turnout in research, as do more choices on the ballot which PR allows.
Contrary to claims that PR will lead to a factionalized city council, Fortune Magazine, a very conservative, business interest publication called Cincinnati, "the best governed city in America" when PR was used. African Americans were first elected (1931) using PR, and were able to win a fair share of the seats. In Cambridge, where PR has been used for 67 years, 90% of the voters elect their first or second choice, and women enjoy between 1/3 and 2/3 of the representation historically.
So a YES vote means you support the following:
1. democracy
2. increasing voter turnout
3. better representation of women and minorities
4. greater accountability to the people
5. allowing voters to indicate levels of preference, or rank candidates
6. that you would like to see better leadership, the favorites of the community, for our future.
Vote YES on ISSUE 8!
Oh, and please, don't believe the hype that Smitherman is the lone supporter of PR in Cincinnati. Check out our LONG LIST of diverse endorsers on our Web Site: http://www.BetterBallotCincinnati.com
Let me get this straight. You decry people who use personal attacks instead of debating the issues, but you call your opponent "Sillyman". And "the people pushing PR are doing so for selfish reasons. And many of the people who support PR are hypocrites." Hmmm.
You say, "PR is un-American and non-Democratic. PR is also bad for the Black community and disenfranchises voters."
But your saying these things doesn't make them true. They are false.
Your entire post betrays complete ignorance of how PR works and how it has worked for Cincinatti in the past. Unless, of course, you are one of those selfish hypocrites you write about.
Get ready Nate Smitherman's brainwashed attack dogs are-a-coming!
I'm waiting for the national NAACP to slap a muzzle on that egomaniac! Nate's right. Sillyman is SILLY!
Wayne
If PR is adopted every voter will have up to nine votes. Will every one of those 9 votes be counted? Will every one of those 9 votes count toward the election of Councilmembers?
Any honest person knows that the answer is no. Every vote doesn't count. The system is un-American and anti-Democratic. You can't dispute this truth, so you avoid answering the questions.
You want the voters to vote based on ignorance because that's the only way you can win.
[NOTE TO MY READERS: Anthony Lorenzo doesn't live or vote in Cincinnati. He is a paid consultant who goes across the country and tries to trick people into adopting PR or some version of it (i.e., Instant Runoff Voting). He isn't voluntarily trying to ruin our system; he is being paid to do so.]
Anthony
I'll respond to your lengthy comments in a separate blog entry.
Anthony Lorenzo is the same person who stays on Smitherman's show as his "expert". So who's paying him? Could it be Smitherman?
Jim Clingman just called the buzz saving smitherman a call he wouldn't have made anyway defending smitherman from what Jeff Berding call. This is one time Berding was right.
"If PR is adopted every voter will have up to nine votes. Will every one of those 9 votes be counted? Will every one of those 9 votes count toward the election of Councilmembers? Any honest person knows that the answer is no."
Nate--you are absolutely correct. And thank you for exposing PR for its direct assault on the principle of one man, one vote. PR only gives you nine rankings; rankings aren't the same as votes. Your top rank is transferred to the candidate that it will help the most, and your choice of specific candidates in most cases will not count. Why replace a system that allows ALL the people's votes to count with one that uses accounting formulas to determines how to distribute votes?!
The Charterites and their cohorts want to screw with the democratic system because, as you say, this will allow them to get their people on Council without even having to worry about reaching out to Cincinnati's near majority black population.
The Better Ballot group rather shamelessly says "How ironic it is we should have 18 places we can get a hamburger, yet only two choices when picking those who will tax and regulate our lives." No you idiots. Under the current system you can choose NINE candidates regardless of party affiliation. You bozos want to take that right away from voters. You want to get your people elected by acturarial formulas instead of actual people.
Give them hell Nate!
Nate is wrong - every vote does count in a PR election. Proportional Representation is also known as the Single Transferable Vote. Every voter gets ONE vote. You rank your choices from 1 up to 9. Your vote counts for your first choice, unless that candidate can't use your vote, either because they already have enough votes to be elected, or because they have so few votes they can't possibly be elected. In that case, your vote counts for your second choice, or your highest choice who can still use your vote. This transfer feature means far fewer votes are wasted under PR than under our current system. It works much like a runoff election, where you have some candidates eliminated from the ballot because they got too few votes, then voters who wanted one of those no longer on the ballot get a chance to vote for their next highest choice who is still on the ballot. The voter controls the transfer of his/her ballot – it always goes to the voters most preferred candidate who is still on the ballot (in contention).
Cincinnati used exactly this PR system for three decades - from the 1920s to the 1950s - when African Americans were a far smaller percentage of the population than they are today, and during that time our first African American was elected to Council in 1931, and in the 1940s and early 1950s there was consistent African American representation on Council in proportion to their percentage of the population. That in fact was the reason PR was attacked by those who did not like the increased influence of African Americans in city governance. The 1957 campaign which repealed PR was explicitly based on the racist fear that Ted Berry was likely to become mayor unless we got rid of PR. After PR was removed, not only was Ted Berry NOT elected mayor, he was not even elected to the Council, even though he had been on Council for several terms and had obvious major support (having received the 2nd highest total of first choice rankings in the 1955 election). The intent of getting rid of PR was to reduce African American representation on Council. That was the effect as well - with PR gone, no African Americans were elected to Council for the next three elections. For decades after that, African Americans were severely under-represented on Council in almost every election in spite of their growing percentage of the population. The last two elections have seen only 2 African Americans elected to the 9 member Council, even though African Americans are about 45% of the population. Nate is definitely wrong when he claims PR would result in African Americans being underrepresented. PR is the best way to insure that majorities will have majority representation without denying minorities their fair share of representation.
Here is a simple example to show the difference the system of election makes. Say you have an election in which there are 44,000 Republican voters, 33,000 Democrats, and 22,000 Charterites. Each party puts up a full slate of 9 candidates, and all voters vote a straight party ticket for their party's candidates. Under 9x (our current system), the results of that election would be 9 Republicans win (because they all got 44,000 votes), even though a majority (5/9) of the voters wanted NO Republicans to win. Under a PR election, those exact same voting numbers would result in a Council made up of 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats, and 2 Charterites. Which result seems more fair? Which one seems more like majority rule? The whole point of PR, and the reason it was invented, is to provide for majority rule AND minority representation - the two are not mutually exclusive.
PR gives the voters control and results in a Council that fairly reflects the electorate.
Vote FOR Issue 8. PR really is the fairest way to vote.
A few points about proportional representation might be in order:
1. The Democratic Party requires every state to allocate convention delegates by proportional representation in presidential primaries and caucuses. Perhaps some see the Democratic Party as un-American, but many don't -- and the Republicans in fact use proportional representation in some of their primaries, including New Hampshire.
2. The form of "PR" used in those primaries is often different than that once used in Cincinnati and now on the ballot, but the Iowa caucuses are pretty much EXACTLY like the Cincinnati system. People can move to their second choice if they can't help their first choice win a delegate. That's not "undemocratic" -- that's making sure people don't waste their vote.
3. If a candidate is everyone's third choice but no one's first choice, sorry, they don't deserve to win in a PR system. PR is based on a council where voters really trust their representatives enough to give them first choice. The alternative is "third rate democracy" -- I'll take "first rate" any time.
4. PR isn't good just for "tiny minorities." It's good for everyone who believes in a fair share. If Democratic candidates win 51% of votes, they likely will win 5 of 9 seats. If they win 41% of votes, they will win 4 of nine seats. If the win 70% of votes, they will win 7 of 9 seats. This is fair representation at its most basic.
5. Better Ballot Cincinnati answers a lot of these questions well. Check it out at www.betterballotcincinnnati.com
"Fortune Magazine, a very conservative, business interest publication called Cincinnati, "the best governed city in America" when PR was used."
Mr Lorenzo, please post a link to this story.
Quim
I think dude said the article was from over 75 years ago in 1931. I don't think you'll get a link to that one.
The belief that "every vote doesn't count" is absurd. In the current system, it is basically democratic, because people basically vote up or down on each seat. So that plurality captures each and every seat. PR is of course different. It's purpose is to capture the views of the electorate in a microcosm, not merely to pack nine people of the majority into the legislature. The plurality will still have the most people, meaning the plurality will still dominate just like before, but the minority will just get their views represented. As for getting extremists elected, 10% is just too high a threshold for most radicals to get elected. The threshold in Germany is 5% and it has been perfectly stable since founding. If the threshold were 10%, as it is basically in this system, there would only be two parties in the legislature. Is Germany not democratic? Is Ireland not democratic? These nations all use proportional representation, and Ireland uses the form that's currently being proposed in Cincinnati. You're attacks are not only ignorant to the extreme, they are just completely absurd.
I just read on CityBeat that the Cincinnati chapter of the NAACP doesn't have non-profit corporation status in Ohio- legally are they allowed to do anything, including raising/taking money (dues or contributions) and spend it? How do they file tax returns if they don't have state non-profit status?
If Lorenzo is going to write about "Procter & Gamble" he should at least learn the correct spelling. Stupid felon (according to Nate).
Post a Comment