|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Elections & Legislation |
|
Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
Current rating: 0 |
by via email
(No verified email address) |
22 Oct 2004
|
In a sign our campaign is having a real impact, at-large proponents
have resorted to distortions of the facts. |
**Distortion #1 -- Population Growth:
Three weeks ago they said Ward 6 had 800 new residents. Two weeks ago
it was 1100. A few days ago it was 1400. At 200 new residents/week
we can expect another growth spurt any day now! This distorted growth
is their response to the fact that ward 3 really has the largest
population growth in the last 4 years (at least 800 in apartments
alone).
**Distortion #2 -- Carbondale's Great At-Large System:
Plus 2 has continually used Carbondale's at-large council as their
prime example. A little fact-checking revealed most of their
claims are lies. Some examples:
Lie : Carbondale's 6-member council has two African-Americans (33%).
Fact: Carbondale's 7-member council has one African-American (14%).
Lie : Carbondale recently switched to at-large voting in 1966.
Fact: They've elected their council at-large since 1911.
Lie : Students are a "significant voting block" and feel
well-represented by the council.
Fact: Students feel so underrepresented by the at-large council that
they put a referendum on the ballot in 2001 to change it to a
ward system like we have in Urbana! Students were being
underrepresented because all council members came from a
corner of town no students lived in. |
See also:
http://www.noatlarge.org
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by Christopher Alix
alix (nospam) prairiecity.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Oct 2004
|
As far as I can tell, both Plus 2 For Urbana and Vote No At Large have been responsible and accurate in our respective materials and statements. Accusations of "faked facts" and "lies" do a disservice to public debate, and when made inaccurately and anonymously, do a disservice to this forum. I don't feel obligated to respond to every anonymous attack that comes my way, but in this case a response is in order.
1. With regard to growth since the 2000 census, any numbers used by Plus 2 For Urbana have been based on housing starts (both single and multiple family units) since April, 2000. By multiplying housing starts in Ward 6 and elsewhere by an estimate of 2.25 members per household, we determine the estimated population of Ward 6, and its population relative to an average of the other 6 wards. Ward 6 was chosen in part because of its track record of underrepresentation stemming from the previous ward map, which can be quantified by the 2000 census numbers. It is not the only ward in the City which is experiencing above-average growth. But it is accurate to say that since April 2000, a majority of housing starts have been in the new Ward 6. Although of course other factors are involved, including increases and decreases in occupancy of already-built apartment units, demolition of housing units as a result of University expansion, loss of units to casualty, conversion of single units to multiple units and vice versa, and so on, we believe housing starts are a reasonable first-order indicator of the problem. The uneven growth argument is simply that some wards inevitably grow faster than others, and that they tend to be the same wards census after census, resulting in the systemic and ongoing underrepresentation of residents in these wards. Other than the fact that in some materials we revised percentages to account for the Ward 4 undercount (discussed elsewhere), as far as I know we've only got one set of underlying numbers, and we've been operating from them since Day 1.
2. The Carbondale City Council has six Council members and a Mayor. Two of the six Council members (Corene McDaniel and Steven Haynes) are African-American. Carbondale adopted the Council/Manager system of government in 1966. The previous system was a Trustee system with Trustees elected at large. As a reference in your future efforts at fact checking, the Carbondale City Clerk can be reached at (618) 549-5302, ext. 280, although even the City of Carbondale web site will tell you how many Council members there are.
I'm sure there are students in Carbondale who feel unrepresented by Council. Some students have indeed advocated conversion to a ward system. Yet candidates in Carbondale City Council elections regularly speak of the need to court student votes, and students have played a large role in campaigns during years where student issues, such as the bar entry age and police/student relations, have been prominent. The Daily Egyptian (the SIU student newspaper) and the Southern Illinoisan (the Carbondale newspaper) during such elections have repeatedly noted the importance of student influence, notably including the 1997 defeat of long-time Council member John Yow, in large part due to his support of the 21-year old bar entry age.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these accusations, but I think readers of this forum who do their own fact checking will find that although the relevant parties in this debate differ strongly in our opinions, neither has had to resort to lies or fake facts. |
|
Just the Facts |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Oct 2004
|
1. That's all well and fine, but NOTHING you said is a legal basis for apportioning ward maps. Once again, you and the mayor can whine all you want, but unless you conduct an updated census, none of your "estimates'" are worth a tinker's damn in court. And your concentration on growth in certain parts of the city one again ignores the fact that Wards 6 and 7 are far from the only parts of the city undergoing growth. How to FAIRLY account for growth? Take a updated census. Can't be bothered by that fact? Then it's easy to see the idea of adding two at-large seats is nothing but a gamble on a political power grab by those unable to fairly win an election or unable to abide by the choices of voters in five wards of the city.
2. Yeah, I'll bet the council members in Carbondale talk a lot about how they are concerned about the views of students -- right before the next election. It's all just smoke and mirrors, like Bush's compassionate conservatism. It's now obvious to everyone why you find the example of Carbondale to be so compelling to you -- it gives exactly the result you seek for Urbana -- the disenfranchisement of students. Congratulations for helping make the point once again why adding at-large seats is inimical to the interests of the majority of voters in Urbana.
Vote NO At-Large
http://www.noatlarge.org
http://www.ucimc.org/feature/display/20946/index.php |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Oct 2004
|
I would like to make some comments regarding the proposed "at large" districts in Urbana.
1) New housing starts don't provide a reliable estimate of the population growth in a district, which has already been admitted by Christopher Alix. An accurate population count can only be accomplished through a recent census that counts everyone.
2) There is a tendency of the U.S. Census Bureau to UNDERCOUNT the population of areas where there is more than the usual number of students, minorities, immigrants, and the poor. Because areas with new housing starts are usually white and affluent, they already enjoy an advantage over other groups in the census count. Hence, the presumed undercount by At-Large Election supporters is probably imaginary.
3) Students, immigrants, minorities, and the poor have lower rates of voting than people who are white and affluent. As a result, these disadvantaged groups are almost always under-represented by an at-large election.
4) Even in district elections, there will be a tendency for these same groups to be under-represented for the same reason: They're less likely to vote in a district election than affluent white voters, and therefore less likely to elect a council member who will represent their interests. Their under-representation at the district level, however, will be less severe than in an at-large election (this is almost always the case, although statistical flukes can happen).
5) Running for polictical office in an at-large election is more costly than running for political office in a district election. This creates a financial barrier that interferes with the ability of the poor, minorities, students, and other disadvantaged groups to run for political office. As a result, their political influence is weakened.
6) Unlike Western Europe and many other areas of the world, the United States and its political subdivisions conduct winner-takes-all elections, rather than the proportional parliamentary system. Winner-take-all elections usually place minorities and disadvantaged groups at a political disadvantage, and they also discourage the development of more than two political parties.
With these thoughts in mind, it is easy to see why the Pro-At-Large Camp supports at-large elections: They wish to further disenfranchise students, minorities, immigrants, and the poor to an even greater extent than they already are by a political system that poorly represents them.
The city of Carbondale, Ilinois, probably has at-large voting because of the large student population at Southern Illinois University. It seems likely that this type of electoral process has been retained to reduce the influence of students and other minorities in this city. It has been implied that minorities are not discriminated against because 16% of the city council members are black. However, the population of Carbondale is 23% black.
It should also be noted that Carbondale has a population of about 20,000 people, which makes it a smaller city than Urbana. Therefore, the at-large elections in Carbondale are more similar to district elections in a larger city and the costs of running for political office at this city will be lower. Therefore, at-large elections in Carbondale can be expected to be less discriminatory than at-large elections in Urbana.
The goal of the At-Large Election supporters isn't the rectification of representational imbalances within the political system, but rather they seek to increase their political power at the expense of other groups who are already under-represented by the political system in Urbana and elsewhere. Their poorly worded referendum is nothing more than a power grab. |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by Fairness First
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Oct 2004
|
The ward map can be legal and yet unfair. Giving all of Urbana a equal stake in two at large seats balances the unfairness that exists.
Urbana cannot afford a census and shouldn't spend the money on one when there are other opportunities to making representation fairer. If the economic state of North Cunningham and Philo Road had not be ignored for so long, maybe we'd could splurge on a census but not right now. Maybe our schools would not be covering a $2 million deficit be reducing programs either.
Carbondale is an excellent example to hold up next to Springfield and Danville. It shows that at-large representation in itself is not discriminatory, it is the voters in an at-large system that create either opportunity or discrimination.
All at-large councils still form the majority of municipal governments and approximately 1 in 5 cities use a hybrid. Ben G. makes a big deal out of 250 communities dropping at-large, but he neglects to tell you that represents barely 1% of the 23,000 communities in the US or share other interesting facts from The Municipal Yearbook that undermine the no at-large arguments.
Come to think of it, why does the no at-large site fail to cite a single case where a hybrid system has been ordered to change to a wholly ward system? It is because they can't find one. Why does the "review" of literature there only include citations critical of at-large? It is because Ben's review is not one in an academic sense, where the literature of both pros and cons are compared conclusions are drawn. I really like the paper that uses game theory to mathmatically demonstrate that the individual voter is best served by a hybrid system with X ward seats and the square root of X at-large seats. But you won't see that one listed in the no at-large review.
I am not sure why some who are willing to honestly debate these issues bother with this forum. Like Jon Stewart said about the hacks on Crossfire, "Your arguments are not honest." Ya'll just have political axes to grind or characters to assassinate. Maybe you can lump the mayor and the council members in with that generality, but the majority of plus 2 supporters think there is a problem and that they are advocating a solution.
Vote YES at-large
http://www.plus2forurbana.org |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by Fairness First
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
My original commentary was for Dose. This is for Mr. Hilty.
Point #5 -> This is only true if the candidate is unwilling to ask for small donations. Tom Bruno spent about $4100 on a successful at-large campaign in Champaign, whose population is twice that of Urbana. 6 donations of $100, 25 of $50, 50 of $25, and 100 of $10 raises that amount. This is not "big money" influence.
Are minority voters and students currently disenfranchised in Urbana. The council would tell you otherwise by pointing to Ward 3 and the several students that have been elected over the past several years. Why do you believe is OK to dilute the vote of Ward 6 (or other growth ward) voters? Disenfranchisement is OK for some but not others? I think most Plus 2 supporters are focused on helping those that are habitually short changed because of the census cycle.
No matter how many times No At-Larges try to say otherwise, Carbondale has 2 minority councilmembers on a 6 person council. That represents 33%.
>It should also be noted that Carbondale has a
>population of about 20,000 people, which makes
>it a smaller city than Urbana. Therefore, the
>at-large elections in Carbondale are more similar
>to district elections in a larger city and the costs of
>running for political office at this city will be lower.
>Therefore, at-large elections in Carbondale can
>be expected to be less discriminatory than
>at-large elections in Urbana.
Other than the cost factor, this commentary is inconsistent. Either you believe at-large is discriminatory because of statistical tendancies (which would be as true in Carbondale as in Urbana) or there is a factor based on the character of the community that comes into play as well. If Carbondale was divided up into wards, they would have 7, just like Urbana, and it's 26,000 citizens would be divided up into roughly 3,700 person chunks. Urbana wards are about 45% bigger, but Carbondale at-large is about five times the size of an Urbana ward.
>The goal of the At-Large Election supporters isn't
>the rectification of representational imbalances
>within the political system, but rather they seek to
>increase their political power at the expense of
>other groups who are already under-represented
>by the political system in Urbana and elsewhere.
>Their poorly worded referendum is nothing more
>than a power grab.
This is also incorrect. If the paranoia about this being a republican plot were correct (it isn't) it would be poorly thought out. The two at-large seats are likley to go to democrats since we win 55-45 or better in most elections. They may be more moderate democrats, having to appeal the character of the entire city, rather than the current power block of Democrats and Greens posing as Democrats.
Most of the supports of Plus 2 believe that vote dilution is bad whether you are black or white, rich or poor, left or right. All at-large is not acceptable because of the potential for abuse, all ward is not acceptable because of the tangible abuse that is going on right now. Plus 2 seeks a compromise that mitigates both.
Vote YES at-large
http://www.plus2forurbana.org |
|
Define "Fairness" |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
I guess it all depends on what your definition of fairness is. Your definition indicates that concentrating power in the hands of those wards with larger turnouts is "fair." It also indicates that your idea of "fairness" is what is "fair" for two wards is something that is provably unfair for five others. That is not only unconstitutional, but it is only fair to a minority of citizens, while being very unfair to those you are unconstitutionally disenfranchising.
What's this about Urbana not being able to afford an updated census? If Urbana, under Tod's leadership, can afford to subsidize Carle (not exactly an organization that is on the financial ropes) moving two blocks to Lincoln Square, leaving another downtown building nearly empty (which can hardly be called progress on that front, despite what the News-Gazette would have you believe -- they never saw a corporate handout they didn't like), then we certainly can afford a census to provide the LEGAL basis for a revised ward map.
The fact that you can only come up with such a lame excuse for not calling for an updated census indicates that the case in favor on adding at-large seats is _solely_ dependent on unjustifiable rhetoric about some ephemeral "fairness" that benefits a minority of our citizens at the expense of the majority.
Even more ironically, you express concern about the fact that "the economic state of North Cunningham and Philo Road [has been] ignored for so long..." Guess what? Tod, the master of political skullduggery in Urbana and the main mover behind at-large, is the one who directs city staff. And he directed city staff to aid WalMart by subverting the Comprehensive Plan by allowing WalMart to go where they wanted to, instead of where it would cost the citizens of Urbana the least amount to subsidize the infrastructure WalMart requires and to help either North Cunningham or Philo Road. Given this, assuming you really care about it and are are not just using it as more sophitristic fluff to impress those who don't know the facts, you ought to be supporting Tod's recall, instead of putting even more power in that political backstabber's hands. See: http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/20264
You ask "Are minority voters and students currently disenfranchised in Urbana[?]" No they are not, so there is but little need for further comment on your remark that "Disenfranchisement is OK for some but not others..." because that is EXACTLY what the proposal to add at-large is all about. It sure as hell is NOT about "fairness," except in your bizarro world. There is no legal basis to claim that anyone has been disenfranchised by the current ward map, which is why you seek a political solution instead of a legal one to Tod' s lack of support from the current council.
Finally, if there really was "tangible abuse" of the ward system, you would be calling for an updated census or taking a case to court over the current map. The fact that you are not willing or able to do either is because of the simple fact that the case for at-large is nothing but a political smokecreen of illogical boliviation.
If "most of the supports[sic] of Plus 2 believe that vote dilution is bad whether you are black or white, rich or poor, left or right" then they should go into the voting booth on Nov. 2 and vote NO!
BTW, I realize that the few Todocrats do support at-large, but the net effect of at-large seats makes Republicans VERY competitive in the off-year city elections where there is a low citywide turnout, since traditionally Republican or Republican-leaning wards like 6 and 7 tend to have relatively high turnouts even in non-presidential years. Yes, at-large is " poorly thought out" and it's just the latest example of many such ideas from Tod's corner. It is just one more Satterthwaite mis-step of the many that has made the last four years one where Urbana's progress has failed to match the expectations of the majority of voters. This is a Democratic city and Tod has failed to capitalize on the power of the majority at his disposal because he is more interested in his own political aggrandisement and running for higher office than he is in working with those supported by the majority of Urbana's citizens. Now he wants to subvert the political basis of his own party. The at-large referendum should be seen as a referendum on his misleadership. Thus, vote no if you are tired of his chicanery, lack of leadership,and failure to get along with any except those willing to kiss his ass every time he winks and bends over.
Mr. Hilty is more than able to dispute your illogical rendering of his comments, so I will leave that to him.
Vote NO At-large! |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
This post is a response to "Fairness First." A better name tag would be "Unfairness First." In a nutshell, the arguments of this person amount to doubletalk and sweeping overgeneralizations from inappropriate examples. I shall attempt to address his/her misleading comments below.
"This is only true if the candidate is unwilling to ask for small donations. Tom Bruno spent about $4100 on a successful at-large campaign in Champaign . . . . This is not 'big money' influence."
Tom Bruno enjoyed considerable name recognition before he ever campaigned for political office. This was in part the result of his TV program on WILL. Furthermore, he was initially appointed to his at-large position by the mayor of Champaign, thus he was able to run as an incumbent. On top of all of this, he received glowing endorsements from the News-Gazette, which amounted to free advertising for his political campaign. Thus, it wasn't necessary to raise $20,000 in order to get himself elected. The path to political office was made as straight and smooth as possible. It also helps to be a candidate of one of the two major political parties because of their ability to raise campaign funds and send canvassers into a community.
By the standards of people who are white and affluent, $4100 may not seem like "big money," but to college students, poor people, and members of some minority groups, even $4100 presents a formidable barrier.
However, political candidates shouldn't be allowed to raise money for political campaigns, nor should they be allowed to spend any of their own money. Instead, the appropriate subdivision of the State should provide each candidate the same amount of money. This is the only way to have a fair election.
Furthermore, I stated in #5 that political campaigns for at-large elections are more costly than district elections. This is generally true, and the Bruno example does nothing to repudiate it. In order to invalidate this assertion, "Fairness First" would have to present convincing evidence that a district election would cost the average candidate more money than an at-large election, and he or she has not done this. Instead, "Fairness First" makes a sweeping overgeneralization from an inappropriate example.
"Are minority voters and students currently disenfranchised in Urbana[?]"
To some extent. In my opinion, this at-large election issue is nothing more than a faction fight between more conservative versus less conservative members of the petite bourgoisie. The differences between these two factions are rather trivial. If the more conservative faction wins this battle, then the more disenfranchised members of the population will be even more poorly represented by the local political system than they are already.
"Why do you believe [it] is OK to dilute the vote of Ward 6 (or other growth ward) voters? Disenfranchisement is OK for some but not others?"
As I have already explained, the U.S. Census undercounts the population in those areas of cities where there is a preponderance of poor people, minorities, immigrants, and college students. The "growth wards" that you refer to are middle-class to affluent white neighborhoods, and they are the least likely to be undercounted in the U.S. Census. The census undercount of disenfranchised neighborhoods offsets the alleged representational bias that results from the growth of white aflfluent neighborhoods, assuming that such growth actually occurs.
"I think most Plus 2 supporters are focused on helping those that are habitually short changed because of the census cycle."
No, they are a faction of white conservatives who are attempting to eliminate the slightest hint of progressive thinking in city government and who seek to further extent their power over the more disenfranchised groups of American society.
"Other than the cost factor, this commentary is inconsistent. Either you believe at-large is discriminatory because of statistical tendancies (which would be as true in Carbondale as in Urbana) or there is a factor based on the character of the community that comes into play as well."
There is nothing "inconsistent" about my analysis. The cost of an election campaign can be regarded as a positive monotonic function of the size of a district. This is extremely simple to understand.
"No matter how many times No At-Larges try to say otherwise, Carbondale . . ."
You're attempting a sweeping overgeneralization from a single example. Finding a single counter-example doesn't negate the fundamental fact that at-large districts discriminate against minorities and other disenfranchised groups. This is accomplished by incorporating minority neighborhoods into a city-wide district that is dominated by white people who are middle-class to affluent. The winner-take-all system of election virtually guarantees their domination of election outcomes. Even when members of a minority group are elected through this type of election system, they are generally members of a special subgroup within the minority group who are perceived as being "more white" and less likely to upset the prevailing status quo of conservative white rule.
"This is also incorrect. If the paranoia about this being a republican plot were correct (it isn't) it would be poorly thought out. "
You're attacking a strawman. I never said anything about republicans and democrats. For the record, the local Democratic Party opposes the at-large election referendum. However, it makes little difference to me whether the supporters of the at-large referendum consider themselves democrats, republicans, or independents. As I've already stated, they're the more conservative faction of the petite bourgoisie, regardless of their party affiliation.
"I really like the paper that uses game theory to mathmatically demonstrate that the individual voter is best served by a hybrid system with X ward seats and the square root of X at-large seats. But you won't see that one listed in the no at-large review. "
The article in the News-Gazette didn't present this game-theoretic argument in a coherent manner.
Anything can be proven using game theory by making one set of assumptions or another. Even an absolute dictatorship can be justified using game theory. I happen to have some expertise in game theory, and I would love to see a game-theoretic attempt to justify the at-large referendum. Since you're so fond of this game-theoretic paper, I invite you to post its arguments in a coherent manner, assuming that you are up to this task. I am quite certain that it will be child's play to tear apart the pseudo-logic that is undoubtedly the basis of this paper. |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by Champaign Neighbor
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
With each further comment about the Urbana City Council, At-Large voting, and Tod versus the world, the City of Urbana solidifies itself as the laughing stock of the state.
Enjoy your empty buildings. |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by eavesdropper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
|
Did somebody mention Champaign? Yawn. . . . |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Oct 2004
|
|
I'm still waiting for a coherent presentation of the game-theoretic model that "Fairness First" so deeply admires. Could it be that the disciples of at-large elections don't really understand game-theoretic models? This would appear to be the case considering their conspicuous silence on this topic. |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by Fairness First
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Oct 2004
|
No, some of us just don't have lives that revolve around entertainment like this or that permit non-stop online banter.
Please feel free to read the paper I referred to at ftp://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~edelman/at-large.pdf without any spin introduced by me. I, too, am sure you will find assumptions it makes that don't jibe with your perception of the world.
Fairness is every Urbana resident having an equal stake in their representation. Since the ward system can't provide that, 2 at-large seats balances the gap.
If we are going to talk about Danville and Springfield as examples of all at-
large systems that went bad, it is perfectly reasonable to point to counter examples. It is kind of moot since it is unreasonable to hold up all at-large systems as a negative to hybrid systems, since there are no examples of a hybrid system being ordered to change due to discrimination.
I don't think the cost of the census is a trivial thing. What is lame is advocating spending money on a census that would cost the jobs of 2-3 firemen when fairness can be achieved another way. And what would a census be worth for us in another 3-4 years? Adding 2 at-large seats solves the problem now and 4 years from and 10 years from now.
$4100 is the extreme figure. It consitutes the most spent EVER in at-large elections in Champaign. Champaign has twice as many people as Urbana. If Tom Bruno's celebrity helped him spend less, why haven't others, who have less celebrity spent more? I don't claim that $4100 is an insignificant amount of money, but the breakdown of donations required to get there. If you aren't willing to ask folks to support your campaign for a few bucks, why are you willing to ask them to trust your judgement for millions of their tax dollars?
I'm sure the city staff at least knew who owns the K-mart building, something that one of our council members didn't see fit to ask about until 18 months after the doors closed.
Speaking of faked facts, I got another mailing for no at-large with a list of my "East Urbana Neighbors." Apparently they don't have enough supporters in East Urbana to make a very impressive list since many of these people live west of Vine or in the South Urbana neightborhoods like Ennis Ridge and University Downs. I guess that is no surpise since you don't even have to live in Urbana to get on their list of "community" supporters.
If no at-large was truly concerned about appropriate representation for all Urbana residents, where is the proportional voting counter proposal? It is absent because no at-large is not really concerned about fair representation, just preserving a little corner of power that a minority has carved out. |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
27 Oct 2004
|
Fairness First: "I, too, am sure you will find assumptions it makes that don't jibe with your perception of the world."
It is doubtful that this game-theoretic model corresponds to anyone's perception of the world (including yours). This should become more clear from the problems that I describe below.
The fundamental problem of this game-theoretical model is that it makes too many dubious assumptions. As a result, this model has problems of external and internal validity that make it nearly useless in describing how political systems operate in the real world.
Here is a small sample of the problems affecting this theoretic model:
1) There is no empirical evidence that verifies the theoretical model that has been presented.
2) The author admits that the advocacy of at-large elections has been tainted with "nativism" and can be used to disenfranchise minorities and other stigmatized groups, but he then proceeds to propose a model that completely ignores these objections and assumes that all voters are identical random clones of each other. See #5 below for additional implications of this assumption.
3) This model interprets voter power exclusively in terms of casting a decisive vote in a winning coalition as defined by the Banzhaf measure. Unfortunately, this definition of voter power fails to consider to what extent the voter actually agrees with the positions of the political candidate(s) that he or she is voting for. If a voter agrees with Candidate X 10% of the time and with Candidate Y 30% of the time, he or she may vote for candidate Y as the lesser of two evils, but most of the time this candidate will be casting decisive votes in the city council that the voter actually disagrees with. The Banzhaf measure implicitly assumes that the voter always agrees with their preferred candidate on each and every issue that is voted on, which is rarely true in the real world.
4) Defect #3 above seriously weakens the theoretical validity of Adelman's game-theoretic model as follows: It is implicitly assumed that the at-large candidate is as likely to represent the voter's interest as the district candidate. However, the local district candidate is more likely to be in agreement with the voter's views than the at-large candidate. Therefore the decisive votes of the local district candidate are more likely to reflect the views of the voter than the decisivie votes of the at-large candidate(s). This implies that the Banzhaf measure of the game-theoretic model overestimates voter representation (or power) in the at-large candidates as compared to the district candidates. Thus, adding at-large representatives to city government doesn't increase voter power to the extent that has been predicted by the model. This is a very serious internal validity problem of the model.
5) The model falsely assumes that all voters are the same and that their voting behavior is entirely random. This is implied by the model's use of the Banzhaf measure, which considers all possible combinations of votes for a population of voters. This measure assumes that these possible combinations are all equiprobable, and therefore random outcomes of random votes. This obviously doesn't correspond to how people actually vote in the real world, which limits the generalizability of the model.
6) Because voter behavior is assumed to be random, the model assumes that a voter is as likely to vote for one candidate (or slate of candidates) as another. As a result, the candidates of one political party are as likely to be elected as the candidates of the other party. This assumption is rarely true in the real world (external validity problem). Furthermore, the model assumes that elected representatives are as likely to vote for a piece of leglislation as vote against it -- in other words, their voting behavior is entirely random, which doesn't correspond to the real world either.
7) The model assumes that all elections are restricted to two candidates (or two slates of candidates) representing two political parties. In the real world, this assumption is often invalid as there may be candidates from additional parties or surplus candidates representing the two dominant parties (as sometimes happens in at-large elections).
8) The model assumes that all at-large candidates vote as a bloc, while individual district candidates always cast their votes independently of each other. In the real world, these assumptions are rarely satisfied. Quite often, at-large candidates don't vote as a bloc (or perfect coalition), while district candidates often form coalitions with each other (their votes are often correlated, rather than independent). As a result of these dubious assumptions, the model overestimates the ability of at-large candidates to cast decisive votes in a city council, while it underestimates the ability of district candidates to cast decisive votes in a city council. The dubious nature of these built-in assumptions seriously undermines the internal validity of this model and leads to a systemic overestimation of voter-power through their at-large representatives, while underestimating voter-power through district representatives.
As for the other comments that Fairness First has made, I see no point in revisiting old issues. |
|
Re: Faked Facts from Pro-At-Large Camp |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
There is one other problem with Adelman's game-theoretic model that should be mentioned: It assumes that there aren't any at-large representatives in city government unless there are some council members who are elected on a city-wide basis. This is incorrect, because cities elect mayors and sometimes other public officials in at-large elections. Adelman's game-theoretic model actually assumes that the city government consists of elected council members only and there is no mention of a mayor. If the elected council members appointed a city manager to run the city in the absence of a mayor, then this type of city government would be in accordance with Adelman's game-theoretic model, but I'm not aware of any city in the United States that has this type of city government. Certainly the city of Urbana doesn't.
A mayor is a powerful elected official who can vote on legislative matters before the city council (if only to break ties), who can introduce legislation, who can fill vacancies in the city council, and who appoints numerous high-ranking public officials to the executive branch of government and various commissions. It would be a fair assertion to state that the mayor enjoys the political power of at least 2 city council members.
What this means is that the city of Urbana already has the equivalent of 2 at-large representatives in the form of the mayor. Because this game-theoretic model asserts that voter power is optimized when at-large representatives are equal to the square-root of the size of the council, that means the government of the city of Urbana is already in conformity with the assumptions of Adelman's model. The city of Urbana currently has 6 council members, and the square-root of 6 is approximately 2.45. Adelman states that this number should be rounded down to the nearest integer, therefore according to his model the city of Urbana should have 2 at-large representatives. However, the city of Urbana already has the equivalent of 2 at-large representatives in the form of the mayor (who is elected at-large), therefore the city of Urbana is already in compliance with this game-theoretic model.
I regard this oversight as a serious shortcoming in Adelman's analysis. He complains that other political scientists are out-of-contact with the realities of local government, but it appears that this is true of Adelman as well. It should also be noted that because the mayor is a single person with the approximate power of 2 council members, he or she always acts like a "voting bloc," which conforms with one of the key assumptions of this game-theoretic model. This key assumption is NOT satisfied by 2 council members who are elected at-large, because they don't necessary vote the same way on each and every legislative issue. Thus, the current form of government in Urbana actually satisfies the assumptions of the model better than the form of government that Adelman proposes. |
|
