Seattle Sun Newspaper - Vol. 7, Issue 11, November 2003

Copyright 2003 Seattle Sun. Please feel free to use the article below in your research. Be sure to cite the Seattle Sun as your source.

POLITICALLY SPEAKING:

District elections initiative celebrates the differences

By JAMES BUSH

Let's start our discussion of the Seattle City Council district elections proposal by stating the obvious: switching to districts wouldn't do any harm.

Elections by geographic district are the basis of American democracy. District-based systems are used in virtually every major American city except Seattle (plus Detroit, Mich., and Columbus, Ohio, two burgs that nobody tries too hard to emulate).

The unaccountably popular argument that a switch to districts will lead to ward politics (whatever that is) or widespread corruption is completely unproven.

In this light, Council President Peter Steinbrueck's vow that he will never run under a district system is interesting, but hardly compelling. While district-hater Steinbrueck may indeed prove to be the exception to the rule, most politicians have an amazing ability to adapt. They'll handle the switch to districts just fine.

District elections are different. If Seattle voters approve Charter Amendment #5 on Nov. 4, they will see immediate and permanent changes. The switch to districts would change the definition of who is considered a strong City Council candidate, the methods people use to prepare for a run, and the way they interact with the public once in office.

The current rule of thumb for council wannabes is that to be a strong candidate, you must be known in the four corners of Seattle. This is why media people, such as former TV commentator Jim Compton and ex-newspaper columnist Jean Godden, have been recruited to run.

Citywide City Council races also elevate fundraising to a sacrament. Take Council member Heidi Wills. If a dozen political observers were strapped to a polygraph and forced to truthfully state Wills' most impressive political skill, they'd admit it's her ability to raise large amounts of money.

On the other hand, if you're active only in your own neighborhood, you're not one of the chosen. Consider Columbia City activist Darryl Smith. Most everyone agreed he was one of the bright lights in the recent primary: a well-spoken, intelligent candidate with a solid record of community service. But he was too identified with the South End and he lacked Heidi-level fundraising skills, so he finished well behind Godden.

If a district system is adopted, the first question at every political forum will be some variation of "What have you done for this community?"

One minor caveat: Adopting district elections would mean that State Senators and Representatives would immediately become viable City Council contenders. Would this be good or bad? That's your call.

A district system would bring new blood into neighborhood politics. The young, up-and-coming politicos who now flock to the Democratic Party or environmental groups to build connections for a future run at office would instead become regulars at neighborhood meetings. If you were hoping to run for the North Lake Union seat on the districted City Council, you'd find a political aide gig far less attractive than serving as president of the Fremont Neighborhood Council.

Just as community-focused groups would benefit from City Council districts, citywide groups would suffer a bit. The Municipal League ratings would get less attention, the Alki Foundation's support would be less coveted, and citywide newspaper endorsements would lose their punch. (Imagine the thrill of hearing a candidate shout: "Who cares if the Times is backing my opponent I got endorsed by the South Seattle Star!")

The last big change under district elections would be the way council members deal with their constituents. Right now, there are 13 neighborhood districts, each of which holds a district council meeting each month. Council members seldom attend. If each council member served a district containing two neighborhood districts, they'd be at every district council meeting. District-elected council members would routinely appear at major events in the community they serve. The result would be more council face time for city residents and officeholders with a greater knowledge of what's happening outside City Hall.

There are some disadvantages of a move to districts. Instead of getting to vote in all nine City Council races, you'd only vote in one. There's also the fear that a citizen who's on the outs with their district officeholder will be effectively disenfranchised.

But a district-elected officeholder can speak with a stronger voice on issues because they are actually speaking from a specific point of view. Pointed debates are far more likely to hammer out policies that serve the common good than some never-ending search for citywide consensus.

District elections would change Seattle for the better. Please vote "Yes" on City of Seattle Charter Amendment #5.

* * *

The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the publishers.