Past or Future? Austin Latinos & City Council Design

San Diego Strong Mayor (4.00 / 2)

Combining a council-manager form of government with exclusively geographic districts poses significant problems.

The recent experience of San Diego's permanent transition to a strong-mayor form of government (a transition Houston also has made) further bolsters Julio's case.  For some insight:

http://www.sandiego.gov/mayort...

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/...

As Julio has noted elsewhere, Austin's weak mayor form of council-manager government means that the city in effect has seven mayors.  Switching to a system such as 10-1 without addressing this matter would exacerbate the problem, not solve it.

---

by: badmcghee @ Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 13:58:06 PM UTC

Link to Austinites for Geographic Representation website (0.00 / 0)

http://citizensdistricting10-1...

The other side of the story and also an "interesting" read. The independant citizens commission to draw the district lines is the best part of the AGR's proposal.

Please download the petition from the website and have all your neighbors sign it and mail it back to AGR before June 26th.  

---

by: ssuits @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:10:38 AM UTC

San Antonio assertion is VERY flawed (0.00 / 0)

The paper makes the following assertion about San Antonio stating "San Antonio has a 10-1 system and is 63% Latino.  Yet if we examine the demographic composition of its districts, we uncover that Latinos do not have influence across all of them."

However, if you consider the 63% Hispanic is citywide, then 6 districts representing Hispanics is an exact representation on council. We also have an African-American district (District 2) represented by an African-American female and two predominantly Anglo districts (D8 and D10) represented by Anglo males. Finally we have our most Anglo district represented by an Asian-American female.

I really think the group who is promoting this paper REALLY needs to rethink their references to San Antonio. I mean, the demographics in our city on city council play out pretty darn nicely.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:51:28 AM UTC

...it's about influence. And don't forget about the women, (0.00 / 0)

Sure. There are six Latinos, which would be the expected descriptive representation.  That's not my point.  My point is about influence. In 3/4 of the districts depending on SA Latino turnout, Latinos have less influence than they would under an all at-large system (or a hybrid) because of substantial packing. That 63% majority would have the same influence over all at-large seats. Hence, at-large seats mitigate boundary drawing risks.

I am quite happy that the council features non-Latinos.  I just wish that Latinos would have had a fair amount of influence over those individuals' selection given their majority instead of being packed away.  Why not have nine districts at 66% and one district at 30%?

Ultimately, if packing Latino influence works (I mean, come on, District 5 is 93% Latino!) for San Antonio then that is great. But here in Austin, I think such packing would be incredibly unjust; we'd basically finally be transitioning to a system that undercuts majority influence right as Latinos are poised to increasingly become the majority.

Finally - and I am completely surprised by how little play this has gotten here in Austin - SMDs modestly hurt women's representation chances.  We point it out in the position paper and I've blogged about it before.  I think it's really problematic that San Antonio is only 30% women; here in Austin we've had parity our last few cycles.

I value geographic representation, but it comes with a lot of downsides, which is why a hybrid is the best choice.

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 06:38:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are way off on your assessment (0.00 / 0)

First of all, at 63% Latinos have the expected amount of influence on city council in the seats they currently have. I'm not really sure what you are demanding with at-large.

Honestly, I find your race arguments for at-large disgusting compared to what it should be about. At-large representation is not about race. It is about having representatives who provide a citywide view and voting direction on council. Those representatives represent the city, not some geographic area.

You really took the at-large argument down the wrong path. Based on your arguments why doesn't Houston see more parity with regards to gender? I mean, it has FIVE at-large seats but females only occupy one of those seats. Hispanic representation is low also. If you're really trying to sell at-large I guess you had to avoid using the city with the largest number of at-large seats because it completely blows your theories out of the water.

---

by: RBearSAT @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:34:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where's the causation? (0.00 / 0)

I see correlations and chart-junk, with some abstract "facts" wielded to prop up a listing argument.
As for San Antonio "constraining" Latino influence, that's an issue of map-drawing. I don't see how the structure of the council is germane to that issue at all, to the extent that it even exists. If they had 2 at-large seats and both were won by white candidates, we'd all be howling in the other direction. At 63% of the population, having 6 of 10 seats plus the Mayor seems just about right by most anyone's definition of fairness. If the State House map were drawn like that, we'd all be tickled pink and would've had a primary in early March instead of late May.

I also see no causation factor with respect to SMDs and women's representation chances. One city is not a representative sample set, as as stated above, Houston's at-large results clearly counter this theory that a hybrid system betters the chances for female candidates. That is, if we're OK using correlation from single examples as our "evidence".  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 16:05:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's in the cited academic research (0.00 / 0)

As I suggested to RBearSAT, you might want to peruse our position paper to get more detailed explanations of what the existing social science research has found on the different arguments I make.  Or if you are specifically interested in descriptive representation issues, particularly sex and SMDs then 'The Context Matters' by Trounstine & Valdini is your best starting point.

It's seems we completely agree that SMDs introduce map-drawing risks relative to at-large seats. That's precisely my point. At-large seats in a hybrid, which would all feature the same majority, can't be packed. Hence, a system that uses some at-large seats would have a lower share of districts where packing can be used to dilute influence. San Antonio is used as an illustrative example of the well-known and widely understood concept of packing. And remember, I have not particular qualm with San Antonio - it's just the community that's used as an example by local 10-1 proponents.

As I explained in my response to RBearSAT, there seems to be a conflation of descriptive representation and substantive influence.  The implication of my argument is not just about descriptive representation, but also about substantive influence. Over time, the representatives in SA Districts 8,9,10 are likely to be less responsive to Latino concerns than they otherwise would be because their districts don't feature as many Latinos as they could because of the packing of the group into other SMDs. Assuming that Austin Latinos become a majority, we might not be well-served by having both substantial amounts descriptive representation and substantive influence be put at risk by the many quirks inherent to boundary-drawing.


www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 18:22:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

seven thousand one hundred (0.00 / 0)

Before I turn to address your arguments, I'd encourage you read both the more detailed position paper I helped author on Austin district design alternatives, as well as the essay 'The Context Matters' by Trounstine & Valdini which is cited in the position paper.  Much of what I argue in this post and comments here are summaries of more detailed arguments presented there.

In terms of San Antonio Latino influence, we need to make a distinction between descriptive representation and substantive influence.  Descriptive representation looks at the actual count of people elected that share the involuntary identity (ethnicity, race, sex, sexual orientation) characteristics with a group. That's when we would care about whether or not there are representatives that are Latinos themselves. Sometimes, a representative might share an identity characteristic with a group and not be particularly responsive. Which is a segway to influence.

Influence is something different and falls on the substantive representation side.  It's the ability of a group to ensure its policy priorities are of concern to an elected representative, even if that representative does not match the descriptive characteristics of the group.

In an all at-large system, a hybrid, or the alternative nine 63% and one 30% Latino SMDs design I mentioned, Latinos would have more influence over more representatives than in the current San Antonio map, regardless of the ethnicity of the representatives.  That's because instead of being artificially packed into as few districts as possible, their voting influence would be spread over the selection of more representatives, and in turn, those representatives (if interested in re-election) would want to address the policy and constituent needs of the group.

This is the problem for a majority, especially a geographically concentrated one, under an exclusively SMD approach.  It can be packed to reduce its influence.  Over time, we would expect the individuals elected from the 3 current San Antonio districts with diluted Latino influence (8,9,10) to have different agenda priorities and voting records than the packed Latino districts.  It's fine if what you are arguing is that descriptive representation should be enough for Latinos and that actual influence is too much to ask; but state in those terms.  Right now, it seems you are conflating descriptive representation and substantive influence.

In terms of women and SMDs, please note that I am basing my argument on the broader empirical data, not just one one data point like San Antonio.  I am using San Antonio because the local 10-1 proponents highlight San Antonio, so I use it as a point of departure for the broader points made by social science with broader samples. But obviously, it's not enough evidence by itself. The Trounstine & Valdini paper I linked to above has a literature review that covers the key work on SMDs and women, and it uniquely contributes to the field by looking at 7,100 communities and examining the impact of at-large vs. SMD by both sex and ethnicity.  Trounstine & Valdini find a smaller negative effect of SMDs for women than most of the literature, and their sample finds that it is particularly hurtful to the equal representation chances of non-Hispanic white women.

It really doesn't matter for the sex or ethnic or any descriptive representation what San Antonio and Houston or whomever look like at any one snapshot. I've made this point often in other discussions of this topic. Too many factors go into one election. That's why its better to look at the broader research to get a sense of the actual empirical record.
 

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 18:02:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

53% in District 7 isn't Substantive? (0.00 / 0)

Sorry Julio you're talking in circles now.
How would at-large seats increase Latino influence? Other than giving them the potential to elect more "descriptive representation"? Two other districts have over 40% Latino populations. Do you have empirical evidence to show whether those 2 districts offer substantive influence for Latino voters? I would think that even at 1/3 of the pop, a smart council member would heed those voices. Oddly, your study offers nothing to evaluate substantive influence, and whether non-Latino reps can be said to address the policy needs of Latinos or not, only whether the numbers give sufficient opportunity for descriptive representation. In effect you want to use simple quantities to support a concept that you can't really quantify.

As far as women reps, I grant that's a valid concern, but it seems like a case of missing the forest for the trees. Women are under-represented in pretty much every representative democratic system. That's a cultural problem, not a system-specific one, and can't be addressed by papering over a democratic system with mechanisms that MAY by chance bump women from 18% to 20%. Again, we'd be back to some sort of set-aside to ensure anything in this regard.
 By that I mean,  in order to really be a hedge against "constraining", wouldn't Austin need just another gentleman's agreement? Seems like you're simply asking for any possible minority group to be able to out-size their influence artificially, without any way to guarantee or even help the odds of such a thing. Except, apparently, African-Americans, who seem to be all but completely left out of your arguments. 8-2-1 would almost certainly constrain A-A influence, possibly to zero, without yet another manifestation of the GA. At the end of your arguments lies the notion that geographic representation is fraught with the risk that some candidates might win that you or I or anyone else might not like (or a make-up someone might see as unfair). That's not a downside unless you're heavily vested in controlling outcomes. It's just democracy, which is messy. As Rahm said, what you're really asking for is to rig the system to shut out some voices and grant artificial weight to others.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 20:11:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it's your cul-de-sac ;) (5.00 / 1)

LATINOS & SUBSTANTIVE INFLUENCE. True. The position paper doesn't focus on substantive influence because the local proponents have stuck to descriptive representation. Regardless, it's indeed very hard to quantify the precise point of diminishing returns for substantive influence with packing.  The existing academic research focuses on quirky outcomes, like public employee hiring, in a way that makes it hard for me to generalize and feel I am telling it straight.  

But said uncertainty about substantive influence just reiterates the importance of flexibility in spreading influence across seats. You are the one arguing something counter-intuitive: that somehow a design that packs SA Latinos into six SMD districts would provide equal substantive representation to an all or mixed at-large seat system where the Latino majority exerts influence over all the at-large seats. You might be correct that the threshold for identical substantive representation between SMD vs. AL is low (20%? 15%?), but I can't find evidence for such a counter-intuitive claim and you haven't provided any. I obviously wouldn't want to risk Austin Latino substantive influence on that hope, especially given what we empirically do know about how legislators offer different treatment to constituents based on identity(see David Broockman's work).

WOMEN. It seems we agree that the literature indicates that SMDs are very slightly worse for women. The qualitative portion of Trounstine and Valdini's research speaks to the competitive and organizational dynamics that make at-large slightly better for women. Sure, sexism and patriarchy are larger forces, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the contribution from institutional design.

AFRICAN-AMERICANS. They are definitely discussed in the position paper. In the short term, an 8 SMD hybrid can (and in my opinion should) provide a 20%ish African-American influence SMD.  If you want to create a 50% African-American SMD, then you'd need a lot more districts (I think 36 if I remember correctly), per the testimony of the Bickerstaff firm to council/Charter Revision Commission. A 10 SMD system could also at best provide a 20%ish African-American influence SMD.  So, no real difference in the short-term between 8 and 10.  In the long-term, only a hybrid provides the diversity safety valve provided by giving Austin voters the ability to vote for multiple seats.  As you know, the Austin Asian-American community (6% of population in Austin and growing) strongly believes in a hybrid precisely because of their desire to have the at-large diversity pitch available.  I think that the African-American community (8% of population and shrinking) might find that option valuable in the long-term as well.

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 21:41:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This seems thin to me (0.00 / 0)

Juan, respectfully, I don't think you've made your case, along all three points, to wit:

---------------------------
[quote]Austin's future Latino majority will be responsible for paying down the spending put on the public's 'credit card' that is unleashed by an all-geographic system under Austin's 'weak mayor' system (e.g. no mayoral budgetary veto).
Empirical research suggests that given our weak mayor system, growing the number of seats (especially SMD seats) will boost logrolling and neighborhood pork.[quote]
----------------------
Austin's entire future population will be responsible for paying down spending no matter what happens.
But either way, case can be made for SMDs based on the unequal distribution of infrastructure and city services. I would invite you to take a look at St John's park or the Bartholomew Park pool situation or the corner of 12th and Chicon. That didn't happen because of fiscal discipline and in any case you don't offer any reason why 8-2-1 would be better than 10-1. It's just as easy to imagine that the two at-large seats would result in more spending because they have to make everybody happy.
The size of the pie is a different question from how the pie gets cut.

-----------------------------
[quote]The second problem is that Austin's Latinos run a substantial risk of having their influence diluted through 'packing'.  San Antonio has a 10-1 system and is 63% Latino.  Yet if we examine the demographic composition of its districts, we uncover that Latinos do not have influence across all of them.

An artificial 'influence ceiling' has been imposed through rather extreme differences in allocation of San Antonio Latinos across its SMDs.  Notice that I am not advocating that all ten seats require a Latino representative. It is my hope and aspiration that future Latino majorities will vote for the best candidates regardless of ethnicity.  Instead, I am arguing that it's unjust that San Antonio Latino influence is constrained even though they are the city's majority by a substantial margin.[/quote]
------------------------------
This point is so difficult to understand I'd like you to restate it. You seem to be saying that Latinos are not evenly distributed across the city, which results in them "only" influencing 6 seats as a majority. If this is what you mean, it does not square with the notion you proposed in your introduction that
"Single-member districts (SMDs) would make sense if the Austin Latino community was projected to remain a geographically-concentrated minority."

Further, it's difficult to understand how some injustice is actually taking place when the representation so closely matches the demographics.

--------------------------------
[quote]"The third problem is Republicans.  As Pew data consistently shows, Latinos are Democrats and support Democratic policies.
A 10-1 system is likely to put several seats in play for Republicans in the western parts of Austin. Not surprisingly, the local Republicans support AGR's plan.  Including at-large seats would dilute Republican influence.[/quote]
---------------------------------
This one is tough to swallow. I'm a partisan Democrat posting on a partisan Democrat blog here, so maybe I'm treading on dangerous ground. But Austin city council elections are non-partisan, and designing a council system to preserve unofficial partisan hegemony offends my sense of both fair play and transparency.

Further, if I accept the legitimacy of party outcomes along with your reasoning around "packing", it would suggest that to deny the 30-odd% of Austin who votes Republican the ability to influence some part of the council is, to use your word, an "injustice".

In my experience the common cause we make as neighbors more often than not transcends what often amounts to differences over ideological abstractions. I may not agree with my Republican neighbors and colleagues about a wide variety of issues. But they are not a "problem" to be supressed, or as you put it "diluted".

I think we are all better off, no matter what happens, to steer as far from that argument as we can. If we want Democrats to win (and I do), we play to win. We don't rig the game.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 15:30:57 PM UTC

sorry, I meant "Julio" (0.00 / 0)

not enough coffee this morning. my bad.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 15:35:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that's because it's on a low fat, high protein fact diet (0.00 / 0)

1. FISCAL

If you get a chance, read the position paper linked to in the original post.  It summarizes the findings from different folks including Langbein, McDonald & Sass, and Baqir that explain how increasing the number of seats (especially SMDs) coupled with a weak mayor, are a recipe for higher expenditures relative to peers while controlling for other relevant factors.  These researchers are using large samples and multi-variable statistical techniques to uncover patterns that are not the results of chance or quirky outliers. It's fine if you don't like their method or findings, but I am not basing my argument on some personal anecdote or theory. It should be countered with similar, large-sample, multivariate regression research.

The at-large seats emulate a strong mayor, as those tend to be held accountable for citywide fiscal stewardship on a more consistent basis. That's why a hybrid is likely to feature better fiscal stewardship.

As for your response that the 'entire future population will be responsible for paying down spending'.  Well, yes. That's precisely my point.  And in the future, that population will demographically be very different, and its quite unlikely that it will have its spending bolstered by growth and demand like current Austinities, not to mention having to deal with the broader fiscal messes being engendered at all levels.  The increasingly Latino and Asian generations of future Austinites will be paying for the many unsustainable current expenses such as suburban-friendly roads and water extensions that are being consumed now, and the pensions being entered into now, which would be exacerbated by 10-1. Yet, those future generations are unlikely to be able to consume services at those levels. It's bad enough as an inter-generational legacy, even without considering the ethnic/racial disparity.

Like RBearSAT and Mr. Ryland above, it seems that there might be some conflation of descriptive representation and substantive influence going on in your response.  As I explained in my replies to them, my point is not just about there being enough Latino members on the council, because descriptive representation doesn't necessarily mean substantive representation.  If you look at the SA district demographics, Districts 8,9,10 have significantly lower proportions of Latinos than the citywide average.  Why is this design fairer than an all at-large system where all ten seats would have a 63% Latino majority? Or why not have nine 63% SMDs and one 30% SMD? Or why not a hybrid that mixes these two? These counter-factuals get at how the current district design in San Antonio is sub-optimal in terms of maximizing the number of council members that are responsive to Latino substantive concerns, and at least to my judgement, is an unfair arrangement.

That's the problem with districts for the potential future Austin Latino majority; they introduce the risk of packing the new majority in a way that undercuts their citywide substantive influence. It's a concern that is not present with an at-large system and mitigated by a hybrid.

Finally, political party is a voluntary choice.  Ethnicity, race, sex, sexual orientation are not voluntary choices.  Hence, I don't agree that protecting a minority political party's influence is comparable to protecting against discrimination based on involuntary characteristics.  I also think we probably disagree about the extent to which current Republicans are a problem for the well-being of future generations of Latinos.  Neither the 10-1 or 8-2 hybrid proposal are party-focused proportional representation systems, so it would be inaccurate to consider an all SMD system some kind of party-neutral, 'natural' choice. Both systems are artificial constructs that have partisan side effects.

One potential source of confusion: the focus on the post was what is best for Austin Latinos, and given our policy preferences, it doesn't make sense to advocate for Republican empowerment.  That I even have to make this point is strange given the Texas context - it's not like the GOP has shown a lot of interest in giving Latinos a fair shot at representation.  Now, with my purely Austinite cap on, I would not focus on party as much and that's why it's not featured in the more general comparison chart.  

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 19:19:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If so, where's the beef? (0.00 / 0)

Julio,

You aren't really addressing my points so I'll refer you to my original post by way of response.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 20:11:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your argument is essentially against SMDs period. (5.00 / 1)

Why have geographic representation of any kind when it's fraught with perils like:
- males or Caucasians who may not be influenced by Latino policy concerns
- Latinos who may not be influenced by Latino policy needs
- Asian-American representation that may not be influenced by Latino policy concerns
- dispersal of Latino population
- non-dispersal of the Latino population
- not enough non-Latino women
- not enough Asian-American representation
- not enough concern for the "citywide"  
- elected reps who will spend more tax dollars on neighborhood infrastructure (yikes!)
- elected reps who may be Republicans

Who or what could possibly meet the criteria you've erected? Why don't we just have a 10- seat at-large council and a group of researchers to wave their empirical data and assign a slot to each group or non-group that they deem worthy of representation. Just expand the Gentleman's Agreement to it's full patronizing flower and give it the force of law, for fuck's sake.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 20:25:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And after the period is a sentence about at-large lameness (0.00 / 0)

Well, in this post and in the position paper we have to talk about the downsides of SMDs since I am arguing against an exclusively SMD structure.  I could go on about the lameness of an exclusively at-large structure in terms of neighborhood representation, constituent services, tempo of policy innovation, etc.

How we move beyond the status quo is a complex choice. I wish there was an easy, obvious answer.  I think we should accept the complexity and engage empiricism as we make our choice. Obviously, I think an 8-2 hybrid is the least worst system in meeting the many criteria (including neighborhood representation) that I am interested in.


www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 21:55:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, shuck & jive my white a**... (0.00 / 0)

The point is that you've cited a number of issues with SMDs but fail to connect how 2 at-large seats out of 10  could feasibly alleviate any of the problems you cite. Would those 2 seats be set aside for Latinos? Women?  African-Americans? An Asian-American who is substantively influenced by Latino concerns? Who decides? If it's the voters, what if they just elect a Latino who isn't substantively influenced? Or a white woman who is but nobody knows about it?
The counter to the bulk of your argument along these lines is staring you in the face in the form of Austin's current at-large system. At-large limits the influence of everyone who's not in the sweet spot. That much is clear in the here and now.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 22:25:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not in the sweet spot?! (0.00 / 0)

At-large voting gives every voter exactly the same influence. You don't have to live in a particular area of town or be of the "right" ethnicity or gender. We all get one vote, period. I've gotten used to the constant AGR drumbeat about how treating everybody the same is somehow unfair, but it's still nonsense.

Admittedly, at-large voting doesn't give every resident, or even every citizen, exactly the same influence. Those who don't vote (whether through ineligibility or choice) don't have the representation of those who do. Our electoral choices would be a lot more legitimate if more people voted. But the folks who skip elections have no business complaining about the results.

There's something to be said for having neighborhood representation, if only to ensure that lots of different perspectives are heard. That's probably a good enough argument to justify a hybrid system. But on pure fairness, all at-large is by far the best system, and all-SMD is the worst.  

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 17:07:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What can I say but that I disagree (0.00 / 0)

For the same reason we have legislative districts, and for the same reasons we all get so frustrated by the strictly partisan gerrymandering of Texas over the last couple decades.

People in different places (whether states, cities, counties, or neighborhoods) often have different and even competing agendas and needs that sometimes require advocacy beyond at-large representation.

"Pure Fairness" strikes me as mostly notional, because what "pure fairness" has delivered in Austin has often been quite unfair.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 19:22:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are a bunch of angles to this (0.00 / 0)

Getting representation for people with very different needs and perspectives is part of it. Getting elected officials who are in touch with the grass roots is part of it. Those are legitimate reasons for having election districts, especially as the city grows larger and more diverse. For those reasons, I'll probably vote for a hybrid plan over the current system if it's on the ballot.

But I strongly object to the argument, repeated over and over again, that at-large voting unfairly shuts some people out of the game. Robert's statement that

At-large limits the influence of everyone who's not in the sweet spot.

just isn't true! At-large voting gives each voter from East Austin or South Austin or North Austin exactly the same power and influence as a voter in Central or West Austin. I have one vote, the same as you.

The problem, of course, is that there aren't enough active voters in East or South or North Austin. Not enough people vote to achieve the results that some people think should happen, like electing more minorities or electing fewer Central Austin residents. When 88% of the people don't vote, it puts way too much power in the hands of the remaining 12%. That's a big problem, but the only real solution is to change the voting habits of the 88%, which is something that only the 88% can do. Changing the rules of the game to make up for that abdication of power is neither fair nor effective.

Finally, I hear a lot of arguments that such-and-such plan is better because it gives more influence to such-and-such good group (like Hispanics) and limits the influence of such-and-such bad group (like Republicans). That's not the object of the game.  Election rules shouldn't be written to achieve a particular electoral result. The biggest evil of gerrymandering is how it takes choices away from voters. Election rules should be written to empower all voters and to give everybody a say in how our city is governed. That's democracy.  

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 20:54:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your Fairness Argument is Just Wrong (3.00 / 1)

Sorry, Lorenzo, but you're just wrong on this point. I'm not particularly for 10-1 or 8-2-1 or whatever. Ideally I'd put in a 10-2-1 plan, but I really don't care - I just want change to give some geographic representation.

But it's not just about active voting. True, some parts of town have higher turnout than others, but that's not the only problem. The central and west parts of Austin simply have a higher concentration of PEOPLE, too. So from a fairness standpoint, even if turnout was 100% everywhere, the part of the city with the highest concentration of voters would win the day almost every time with at-large districts.

Sure, at-large doesn't unfairly shut out people from the game...but that it's the most fair? That's ridiculous.

I'm not saying that single member districts are theoretically more fair than at-large districts. But really - they're all about the same, from the theoretical standpoint you're coming from.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 07:54:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem here is classic Austin (5.00 / 2)

....the yen for something close to perfection, which drives so many smart folks to think it into the ground. Then you miss a window, everyone throws up their hands and hates each other for awhile, then a few folks slink back to the table and then cobble together something that no one really likes just to get SOMETHING done.

You can't design a democracy to meet every need and address every possible concern. You design a democracy in order for as many people as possible to have a say and thus a share of the responsibility. Hopefully the participants learn from their mistakes and do better the next time, rinse and repeat.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 22:54:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's Austin. (5.00 / 2)

Same thing on the Comprehensive Plan. Some mistake this deep love of process that we have here for a highly engaged political citizenry aka turnout (totally not the case). When we talk about communities guided by highly educated white liberals with an excess of time due to their economic safety, Austin has got to be on that Top 10 list.

Everyone knows better than everyone else, which isn't necessarily a problem, except right now that's pretty much the only people voting and participating in our municipal politics. That's why everything gets so personal- there is no buffer created by the participation of the masses.

The process is so resistent to change that you literally have to wait for people to age out of the process, give up, or pass on to the heavenly planned community in the sky.

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 05:42:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

True enough, KT. (5.00 / 2)

And your statement is one of the strongest arguments yet articulated as to why Austin needs geographic representation now.
Lorenzo's point about equal voting power under at-large is, of course, theoretically true. But the influence you describe - which is what moves the money and support networks for City Council candidates - makes Lorenzo's argument irrelevant in any practical sense.
The self-perpetuating downward spiral of non-involvement in local politics must be arrested and reversed.
People and communities are ignored by candidates because their turnout is low; those communities thus become more alienated and turned off because candidates pay no attention to their concerns, leading to lower turnout next cycle. Candidates in turn raise money and budget for the projected turnout, and the process repeats - to ever-diminishing returns, until the city electorate has been winnowed down to only the MOST active and those with serious skin in the game.
People show up to vote when they believe there is something important at stake for them. What was at stake for SE Austin working families in the Shade-Tovo race? In Leffingwell-McCracken? You had upwards of 60% turnout in the 2008 presidential election, less than 10% in May CC elections. Most anyone who gives it a minute's thought can tell you that local government has a more direct and immediate impact on our daily lives than the President, and yet the vast majority of voters in Austin couldn't care less. It wasn't always like that. Cultural interaction is nothing like what it was in this town 25 yrs ago. We've self-segregated an awful lot in that time - more economically that ethnically. Local government structure needs to become more representative of this reality if Austin ever hopes to become a more egalitarian city.    

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 20:20:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

speaking as a search marketing professional (3.00 / 1)

I can't help but admire the fact that two of your comments to this post are already on the front page of Google Search Results for the term "substantive influence".

That's SEO, folks.

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 21:13:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

substantive representation (0.00 / 0)

Is the term that is more commonly used in social science. The problem, in my experience, is that people hear the 'representation' and not the descriptive and substantive, so you end up having muddled conversations.  Hence, my use of influence in the ninth paragraph of the original post. Alas, it seems even this strategy does not work that well! If you have suggestions for making this distinction clearer from the onset, I am all ears.

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 22:02:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As intense and touchy as this debate has gotten (0.00 / 0)

and I know I'm not immune from that, is anybody else impressed that in the summer of a presidential election year, this many people are this engaged on a city issue?  Just looking at the traffic on these posts versus others reveals that.  I hope that whatever the outcome, people will put their personal disappointments and rivalries aside to appreciate this as an example of great civic discourse in a city that is already known for the heightened awareness of its residents.

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

---

by: PI Lawyer @ Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 23:00:58 PM UTC

A Quick Note on Demographics (2.00 / 1)

Hey Julio -- there's a major problem with your demographic analysis. I'm not sure what the data says exactly, and it might not change your conclusion, but you seem to ignore a major component of your "demographic trends."

You can't just count the Austin under-18 population in determining the way our city's population will look in so many years. As we all know, Austin is still one of the fastest growing cities in the country, and that isn't just due to the  children that current residents are having. There are still tons of people who move to Austin from somewhere else. Whether for jobs or for the education opportunities here, people keep coming. Because of UT, some of that phenomenon will always exist.

Heck, at least half of the BOR staff is in Austin due to that phenomenon. You've gotta account for us, too.  

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 08:03:28 AM UTC

A great point. Here's why the projection is robust. (0.00 / 0)

Projecting population shares in the future is indeed quite tricky as there are many tricky drivers (fertility rates, migration, inter-marriage, and so on). But for a city of Austin's substantial size, it's least worst to look at its existing younger population to get a sense of future ethnic population shares.  

So let's look at the 2000 data and see how this method holds up with the 2010 census.  Here's my U.S. Census data worksheet for the figures below.

2000 Austin Hispanic Population Rate: 31%  
2000 Austin Under 18 Hispanic Population Rate: 43%
2010 Austin Expected Hispanic Population Rate: 37%
2010 Austin Actual Hispanic Population Rate: 35%

So, indeed, with each passing year, Austin appears to closely resemble the ethnic shares of its newly born children.  The likely emerging Austin Latino majority is less fueled by continued immigration than by still substantial gaps in fertility rates and percent of population in child-bearing age. It's hard to predict who might move to Austin in the future, but the likely candidates such as other Texas communities, the American West, Latin America and Asia, would all help to propel the transition momentum highlighted in the chart below and assumed in the original post.

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Sat Jun 23, 2012 at 05:08:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]