[Peace-discuss] reduction in size of the Champaign County Board?

[John W.]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>wrote:

Do the 9 districts we have at present adequately represent the
> disadvantaged? How are the 11 districts to be determined? Who will determine
> them? Will the 11 districts adequately represent the disadvantaged? (Yeah,
> showing my ignorance here... but my heart is in the right place, even as my
> brain is suspicious).
>  --Jenifer
>

Oh, Jen, don't worry.  Just let Bambi handle those pesky details!  :-)  (I
had no idea he was even on the County Board.)




> --- On *Tue, 11/2/10, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>* wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com<http://mc/compose?to=jencart13@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> I'm still confused -- If more districts are added, can we be sure those
> won't be gerrymandered to advantage the advantaged?
>
>
> You can't be "sure," but the smaller the districts are, the harder they are
> to gerrymander, so, "all other things being equal," the concern stated
> indicates that one should support smaller districts.
>
>
> And if there are fewer reps from ea district, it again seems that the
> advantaged will be advantaged.
>
>
> Why? In my experience, it's the opposite. In some of the more conservative,
> Republican, rural areas, it's hard to field 3 vigorous progressive
> candidates. Maybe you find one or two progressive people who are willing to
> run. The other side runs as a slate. So, it's one against three or two
> against three; moreover, your people go into the poll, it says "vote for
> three," and some of your people vote for you and one or two of the people
> you're running against, resulting in a net zero vote for you if that happens
> to include the lowest vote-getter of the opposing slate. All of this makes
> it hard for dissident voices to break in with 3 member districts.
>
>
> On the other hand, 22 vs 27 members would be more efficient when it comes
> to making decisions and getting things done, all things being equal. But ARE
> they equal?? Bambi's pro and Carol's anti, if those are still their stands,
> makes it a no for me.
>  --Jenifer
>
>
> I'm not a fan of Bambi, but the claim that he supports this proposal is no
> argument.
>
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 11/2/10, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org<http://mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org>
> >* wrote:
>
>
> From: Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org<http://mc/compose?to=naiman@justforeignpolicy.org>
> >
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] reduction in size of the Champaign County
> Board?
> To: "Karen Medina" <kmedina67 at gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=kmedina67@gmail.com>
> >
> Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net<http://mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
> >
> Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010, 12:08 PM
>
>
> Here is the exact question which appears on the ballot:
>
>
> http://champaigncountyclerk.com/elections/docs/2010/11_02_2010_Full_Specimen.pdf
>
> "Size of Champaign County Board
>
> Shall the CHAMPAIGN COUNTY BOARD SIZE BE REDUCED from 27 MEMBERS
> elected from nine multi-member districts with 3 members elected from
> each district, to 22 MEMBERS elected from eleven multi-member
> districts with 2 members elected from each district?"
>
> So, assuming that what we are voting on is the question that actually
> appears on the ballot, the argument for not diluting poor and minority
> representation would appear to support the proposal. If you increase
> the number of districts, the resulting districts will be smaller, and
> all other things being equal, poor and minority voters will be less
> diluted in their representation.
>
> I'm not familiar with the recent history that led to this proposal,
> but I can tell you that based on my experience as a County Board
> member from 1992-6, I definitely thought that the size of the County
> Board should be reduced, because my experience was that the size of
> the Board made it hard to organize other County Board members, with
> the result that most of the time the Board was a rubber stamp for the
> staff and the Board Chair.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Karen Medina <*MailScanner has detected a
> possible fraud attempt from "mc" claiming to be* kmedina67 at gmail.com<http://mc/compose?to=kmedina67@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > Can someone comment on the issue of the reduction in size of the
> > Champaign County Board?
> > The following is what I understand of the situation.
> >
> >> why would certain groups get no representation?
> >
> > Diluted representation. i.e. the poor and minorities would be diluted
> > by being mixed with rich white people and having fewer seats to fill.
> > Right now the poor have enough of a say that a representative can get
> > on the board. With fewer seats to fill, there is an easier chance that
> > one of the removed chairs would be the voice of the poor.
> >
> >> they're moving from 9 districts to 11, right?
> > Not necessarily. I think there are 3 proposals on the table of how
> > they would move from 27 to 17 board members.
> >
> > The current situation is 9 districts with 3 reps from each.
> >
> > In May, 2010, there were 3 proposals:
> > 17 members, 17 single-member districts
> > 18 members, from 9 multi-member districts
> > 22 members, from 11 multi-member districts
> >
> > I'm still looking for more information on this.
> > John Bambanic is for the reduction of county board members.
> > Carol Ammons is against (I think). and I think Jan Anderson was
> > against (I think).
> > But I have not talked to either of these women recently on the issue.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20101102/8b733293/attachment-0001.html>