Open Letter to Sandy Baldridge and Mike Levy

Central Austin Elitists (0.00 / 0)

I wish the Central Austin Political machine was pro-choice when it comes to City Council elections. An inordinate amount of time and energy is being spent by some people and endorsement groups, posing as the ultimate power brokers, trying to limit the general population's choices of candidates for the May elections. Little or no thought is being given to recruiting quality candidates to run that represent other areas of the city and/or differing view points.

But I guess we still have At-Large City Council Elections because this system works so well of the elites of this city be they environmentalist or developer in nature. I for one, would like to have a wider choice of candidates to choose from.  

---

by: ssuits @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 20:41:57 PM CST

Same here (0.00 / 0)

But that requires people to actually run. I don't doubt that others could still file, but given the limits on fundraising and the very brief time between the filing period and the election, it takes a while to really campaign citywide so long as we are all at-large in the council district. Time's a wasting.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 20:47:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

First We Have to Agree on the Problem (0.00 / 0)

I think that this election may show that the at-large system is broken.  Folks are going to have to recognize that there is a problem before they're going to be ready to consider single-member districts.

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decision on DOJ pre-clearances goes.  It is a rich irony that the Voting Rights Act, by working to keep the at-large system in place, is making it more difficult for candidates to run for City Council.

---

by: Jeb @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 10:18:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Also (0.00 / 0)

the at-large system keeps the mayor's position relatively weak, regardless of the statutory processes for enacting municipal legislation.  A change to single member districts puts more prestige and power in a mayor's hands, as it becomes a perceived 'step up' from the City Council. When all positions are chosen by the entire city, council members have the same size constituency as the mayor and his position is basically that of council chairperson.

Single member districts would, however, allow for greater representation from more under-served communities. A candidate from SE Austin, for example, wouldn't have to court support from the Central-West Austin Birkenstock Belt to get elected. A council race would be far less expensive and more manageable for grassroots campaigns, and has the added benefit of yielding a farm system to develop young local political talent, which the current system really doesn't do.  A Rick Cofer candidacy, for instance, could have been much more viable in a district 1/10th the size of Austin.

And of course, SMDs could also break the traditional unbalanced pattern of 2 seats for for the old money & 2 seats for the tree-huggers (who then get to tussle over the mayor's spot)with a token seat each for Latinos and African-Americans.   That alone is enough for me to support it.

Of course, I don't live in Austin anymore, so take it for what it's worth....  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:29:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Place 1 candidates (0.00 / 0)

on Single-Member Districts.

Both Riley and Cavazos support them.

http://www.burntorangereport.c...

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 11:39:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

He's not quite dead! (0.00 / 0)

I will fight to the death against single member districts. OK, I don't give a shit.

And quality candidates? I'd say we're doing pretty well in Austin compared to a lot of places. Hades, ID, for example.

More importantly, the Levy treasurer report signature looks like a minimalist torso with breast (maybe  man breasts?).

Something to keep in mind.

---

by: D'Amico @ Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 20:56:19 PM CST