The No campaign had a post on its Facebook page today that I linked to earlier today that has since been removed. Fortunately someone sent a screen shot, which can be viewed by clicking “read more.” I look forward to hearing from someone on the committee who could explain why they felt this was an appropriate post and why it was since taken down. Here’s my original post followed by the screen shot…..
Can someone please explain what point the No on the charter campaign is trying to make on this post from its Facebook page because I certainly can’t follow it?
and here’s a screen shot of the Facebook post that was removed from the No campaign’s Facebook page…
I believe the point No is trying to make is that Courts have regularly made cities change from city-wide voting for councilors (aldermen, …) to smaller ward (district, parish, …) voting systems because city-wide voting reducing minority voices. By minority – I mean the opposite of majority. In Newton the minority voice would be Republican or Muslim or under 30s….
This is the link to a recent study on the issue. Which is relevant if you believe people are people (as opposed to believing Newton is different from the rest of (fill in the blank)).
“Hendrix study says ward-based elections give minorities and women a better shot at elected office
How we elect local leaders determines the sorts of people who win office, which in turn determines the course of the history of the city.” https://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/hendrix-study-says-ward-based-elections-give-minorities-and-women-a-better-shot-at-elected-office/Content?oid=3881499
Do you know if the study looked at at-large systems with or without residency requirement? The findings would be less relevant if the Little Rock data looked at the latter.
Districts or wards or counties can be (and have been) drawn to give certain minority groups a chance at representing someone from that minority. This has been done for decades and provided a voice for those who might not have one if the geographic divisions had been drawn differently. Today, this same idea is behind what is happening in Wisconsin and North Carolina (and other places), where the majority party is redrawing districts to pack as many people as possible in a few districts–giving them a voice–but denying that voice in other locations. The difference is that the recent changes means that Republican lawmakers are overrepresented in those states, compared to the overall Republican population in the state. This is the issue the Supreme Court heard a few weeks ago and will rule on sometime this year. I recently watched a really good video by a Tufts professor explaining the issue geometrically–here’s the address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdkvQ9y04K4. The Tufts professor is Moon Duchin, and she’s part of the Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group.
That said, I fail to see how this relates to Newton. We don’t divide up that way–if we take Lucia’s list of minority groups, there is no geographic concentration within Newton of Republicans, Muslims, under 30s, or other groups. I understand the argument in a different context, but just don’t see the application here.
We know that No Campaign Chair & City Councilor Emily Norton has been on Village 14 since this was posted because she’s commented elsewhere. I hope she will comment here and explain this.
In the absence of an better explanation, I think we can conclude that the No campaign realized it got caught sending a not so subtle racist message to promote its opposition to the charter, in which case an apology would be in order.
@Greg — “Can someone please explain what point the No on the charter campaign is trying to make on this post from its Facebook page because I certainly can’t follow it?”
The point is the text of the post:” 100% at-large council is not a best practice that Newton should model for the country, regardless of Newton’s election history or demographics. ”
Over the past 6 months the NO campaign has posted many contemporary stories, as they arose, from across the country describing where 100% at-large councils are being challenged and removed for their tendency to be found discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act. In this case it was an article circulating this week from the April issue of the Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/voting-rights-at-large-voting-louisiana/524691/
The point that All-at-large is not a progressive best practice and given this larger context, and we shouldn’t be adopting it, even if it might not impact us as much as other communities. No one is arguing that at-large seats are not be beneficial, but 100% at-large is not good. The norm in Massachusetts is a hybrid ward and at-large, as is present in 83% of Massachusetts.
On this note, I should point out a mistake we’ve made in stating there are only 10 communities in MA that are 100% at-large. It’s actually 9. Cambridge uses a proportional representative election that ensure minority representation. And with Lowell being questioned, it may be 8 soon.
“I look forward to hearing from someone on the committee who could explain why they felt this was an appropriate post and why it was since taken down”
The post was deleted because Rev. Haywood asked for it to be deleted, and Howard, if you are reading, I apologize. One downside of Facebook is that after an article with a link is posted to a page, it automatically extracts a photo from the linked article and in this case I think the imagery detracted significantly from the point.
Thank you Jack.
The Charter is not just for the immediate here and now. Newton could change in the future. The Charter, much like our national constitution, should be robust enough to support minority voices.
I would argue, that minority interests do exist in Newton. Some are centered around our Title 1 schools – Lincoln-Eliot, Countryside, and Underwood. Lincoln-Eliot and Underwood are in the same Ward (1), which, to me, is not surprising.
Re: Newton’s elections history and demographics the the NO post refers to:
Over the course of the Commission’s review, we learned that no candidates of color have ever been elected to a ward-elected/ward councilor seat in Newton.
In contrast, 10 candidates of color have been elected citywide, including Mayor Warren~ which is hardly an impressive number but it makes the score 10 to 0. And with this election, perhaps the #’s will go up again, with 3 candidates of color currently running for city wide seats.
Parent and community leaders and city officials who have consistently cared about and stood up for diversity are among the YES Campaign’s staunchest endorsers. And please be reminded how civil rights lawyer Nadine Cohen has weighed in: http://yesnewtoncharter.org/support-the-changes-in-the-charter/
So, those who wish to set Newton in the right direction re: diversity among our elected officials should stand behind the proposal, which (in case it has been overlooked) has been approved in its preliminary and final iterations by the Office of the MA Attorney General.
As for the question posed by the NO campaign about being a model for other municipalities: Hopefully they too will look at their elections data (trends, turnover rates, success rates for candidates of color) and try to invoke system(s) that likewise embrace diversity within their unique communities.
I just want to clarify by minority I mean opposite of majority. I am using definition #2. from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of minority
1 a :the period before attainment of majority (see majority 2)
b :the state of being a legal minor
2 :the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole; specifically :a group having less than the number of votes necessary for control The proposition was opposed by a minority of voters.
3 a :a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment the country’s ethnic minorities
b :a member of a minority group an effort to hire more minorities
The NO campaign has consistently trotted out this line despite knowing that it is untrue. The facts are simple. Newton’s minority population is spread out pretty evenly throughout our 8 wards. Candidates of color have a better chance getting elected citywide, which is why all 8 people of color elected in Newton have been elected at large. All 3 candidates of color this election are running at large (they’re also all supporting the Charter).
This couldn’t be more clear. A vote for YES is a vote for a system where a greater percentage of seats are friendly to candidates of color.
Sue Flicop said above “there is no geographic concentration within Newton of Republicans, Muslims, under 30s, or other groups”.
Bryan Barash also said “Newton’s minority population is spread out pretty evenly throughout our 8 wards.”
These claims are both false. Newton absolutely does have geographic concentrations of minority groups:
In the 18 census tracts covering Newton, the percentage of the population that was non-white in 2010 ranges from 27.8% to 10.1%. The two census tracts with the highest non-white percentage border each other.
see “Demographic Trends and Housing in the City of Newton, Massachusetts”, Bluestone and Corley, 2014
http://www.newtonma.gov/documents/exec/BluestoneDemographicsFinal.pdf
This is true for other kinds of minority groupings as well. The same report shows that the Median Age, Median Household Income, Population Density, etc, all vary a lot by census tract also.
As to the effect of at-large vs ward/district voting on minority representation, a 2003 study based on a survey of cities across the entire US found the following:
“As reported in previous studies, more minority council members are elected from districts than
at-large — 18% versus 11%. The difference is particularly great for African-Americans. Eleven percent
of the council members elected from districts are African-American compared to 5% elected from at-large constituencies. … Thus, district elections increase the representation of minorities…”
“Two Decades Of Continuity And Change in American City Councils”, Svara, 2003
https://www.skidmore.edu/~bturner/Svara%20citycouncilrpt.pdf
@Bret – And if we elected candidates by census tract, you might be onto something. But we don’t.
I did write about this debate in the TAB, I think this past summer. I’m not certain that a minority candidate has a better chance of only being elected citywide in Newton, though the data we have would suggest it is at least a possibility. But the scenario laid out in the FB post, that minorities are under-served by all at-large city councils, would not be true in Newton, in my opinion. That may be the case in cities such as Lowell or others, but not here. Not by race, creed, sexual preference, political affiliation. Not by anything. I think the claim is weak and disingenuous.
Yes or No is strictly a matter of does one prefer geographic representation mixed with at-large, or entirely at-large.
Bryan and Karen, I do not dispute what you are saying about the current dispersion of minorities in Newton, and I know you and everyone else on the CC believe your proposal will result in better minority representation. As you looked at best practices in other communities, did you find any examples of city councils that became more diverse or more female after moving to an all at-large system?
@Bryan — This is not about minority candidates today in Newton, and I’d like you point out where that’s been the issue raised. Its about minority viewpoints, socio-economic diversity, and diversity of opinion on the council. You have consistently ignored the point, perhaps because it causes cognitive dissonance for you to be promoting a 100% at-large practice with a negative history and current impact in other communities around the country.
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/
@ Bryan : Please look at the census tract map. You will see that while the ward boundaries do not exactly align with census tracts, there is quite a lot of correspondence. For instance, Ward 8 is almost entirely within census tracts 3739, 3740, and 3741. These tracts have 3 of the 5 highest non-white population percentages.
Do you have evidence for your claim that “Newton’s minority population is spread out pretty evenly throughout our 8 wards”?
@Bryan: Your view of the world and people is dismal at best. No one calls you out they just accept most of your opinion as worth hearing. I would like to see you take the leadership role you aspire to have and use it for positive change. Trying to label everyone that doesn’t have your opinion, creates my opinion that you cannot solve anything by looking forward. I see things for the good in people and my suggestion is that all of the new candidates that want to ride your coattails should consider another avocation if they all view their future constituents so negatively.
I served in society’s most successfully integrated group in the Armed Forces, my Argentine born wife and step-children just don’t seem to have the problems you think they should have. Among our 10 children are one with a severe handicap, 2 with genetic heart issues, and 2 who are LGBT, so please quit trying to categorize people. Like everyone else life goes on!
@ JimCote Thanks for joining in on the discussion. You had my vote but you validated it. Democrat, Marine Veteran, adoptive father of TEN children. YOU represent diversity. Thank you for your service!!
@ Brian
“Newton’s minority population is spread out pretty evenly throughout our 8 wards.”
That may or may not be true, however, the economic profile of Newton’s residents is NOT evenly spread. I think this is more relevant than minority population, although they are often related. I’m beginning to realize that for me, my NO stance is driven by wanting a playing field that is fair from an economic standpoint, and protects the interests of our lower income residents. – And I don’t feel that the CC proposal does that.
@Claire: Thank you for the nice words but I must correct the record: The election is non-partisan and party affiliation is not a component of the process, with parties not being allowed to endorse and promote candidates by party affiliation, and having said that I am a Republican from a working class background. My father was a public servant and my mom was a stay at home with 8 kids.
Also, our children are not adopted, they all belong to my wife and I as a blended family of multi-colors and I am the step-father to 6.
Few have my diverse background, which I find the backbone of my personal being!
Thank you very much for your vote as I appreciate each and every vote!
If there is an issue you feel passionate about, you can vote for people across the city who hold those same views. If you feel that diversity in government is the overriding issue, then you can vote for diverse candidates around the city. If you want more support for small business, you can do the same–I won’t keep going with examples, but you get my point. The strength of voters around our city focused on the same issue can lead to better results than you could have when only people within that ward vote on a candidate.
Oy, Sue. If the majority of voters across the city want diversity, we can have diversity?
There is a reason why, in most cases, at-large voting is likely to disenfranchise racial minorities: math. A minority concentrated in one part of a city has a much better chance at electing one of its own through ward representation than through at-large representation. The logic is inescapable.
In Newton, we (sadly) do not have a significant enough minority population for ward v. at-large representation to have a meaningful difference. Put another way, we’re so white that it doesn’t matter.
But, perhaps, in light of our (one hopes temporary) blinding whiteness, at-large representation is better for racial minorities in the short run. Stick with me on this one. The current political majority seems to be more progressive, at least in the sense of being open to providing more new housing to outsiders, rather than protecting “village character” as its highest priority. So, a Yes vote for at-large representation may be, in the short term, the better play for racial diversity.
But, make no mistake about it, at-large representation is antithetical to racial diversity in nearly all cases. Those in the racial minority should not have to depend on the kindness of Sue to be represented among elected officials. Just happens that, in the weird overwhelmingly white, mostly progressive situation we find ourselves, the general rule might not apply.
@JimCote Oh YOU are the Repulican. Doesn’t matter a whit! All the more diversity. You really now have my vote!!
Jim Cote rocks. He has my vote too!
And you my vote Emily. I like that you have courage and rock the boat
Thank you Claire!
I’ve been confused by the NO vote throughout this campaign. In 19 years, I’ve never felt my local ward representatives did much at all. Some bordered on useless. What’s mattered for changes I’ve wanted in the city has been going to the School Committee – all represented across the city – and voicing my opinion. Because the school committee is a manageable size, I could reasonably have email conversations and personal meetings and have an influence on outcomes. At the City Council level? Nada.
Hey Jim, sorry you’re so bent out of shape. I’ve always thought we’ve had a cordial relationship, despite my strongly disagreeing with you on things like your opposition to Newton becoming a sanctuary city and investigating Trump.
I do find it interesting that I clearly touched a nerve. The NO campaign has consistently and confusingly tried to play the race card against overwhelming evidence that it doesn’t work in Newton. Then when they’re confronted about it they say they didn’t, but there’s a picture at the top of this post, plain as day, that’s exactly what they did.
PS. Jack, I’m going to assume you’ve missed the many times I’ve answered that question, but I did most recently 9 days ago.
(See: https://village14.com/2017/10/15/is-a-no-vote-on-the-charter-anti-environmental/#comment-81462)
@ Bryan – You said above that “Newton’s minority population is spread out pretty evenly throughout our 8 wards”. Is there documentary evidence of this? I don’t see anything on the charter commission website that supports this statement. I’d like to read it if there is such a document.
@bryan @jim
I don’t know you aside from reading your posts here. I don’t know Jim either. But my experience of you is what Jim said. Can’t count how many times I’ve held back my comment. Sorry dude.
This seems like an appropriate place to quote Jeffrey Pontiff from another thread:
“A few months ago, I compared home values for Ward- and at-Large elected officials. The at-Large group lives in homes that are almost twice as expensive. This is consistent with the story that at-Large races deter less wealthy candidates.”
PS – If I had a dollar for every time Greg has demanded that I issue an apology, I’d be RICH! [Maybe even rich enough to run for an at-large seat!]
@Sean, your characterization of the housing issue has two problems. One is that you equate low-cost housing with racial diversity. That is rather patronizing. Two is that you equate neighborhood groups with upper income. That’s the opposite of reality. What low-income family would want to pay Korff’s $3/month/square foot rent? It’s transitional housing for yuppie strivers.
The “affordable” trope is a farce. They’re having a lottery to let a couple of dozen winners, out of thousands of ticket holders, rent units at around 30% of their income. But their income must stay within a narrow band, 50-80% of AMI (which is around $105,000 here for a family of 4), to keep their prize. This assuages liberal guilt but it does not help the market.
In fact big projects like Washington Place raise housing costs for everyone else. By valuing land at $7M/acre or so and tearing down 20 naturally-affordable (unsubsidized) units, it raises the price of old housing and makes it impractical to add more non-luxury unsubsidized housing. So in your model either you’re rich or you win the lottery (literally).
That’s supposed to promote diversity?
I gave my best response to NO’s Facebook post from early on today, whatever it was intended to accomplish. I have nothing to add. As always, I have learned a lot about what’s in people’s hearts and heads from this thread.
For those of you who are genuinely concerned about diversity as it is raised in the post, I hope you are clearer now about the YES rationale.
@Emily
“PS – If I had a dollar for every time Greg has demanded that I issue an apology, I’d be RICH! [Maybe even rich enough to run for an at-large seat!]”
You have raised $17,000 for your current uncontested Ward race (money raised since your last uncontested Ward race). That doesn’t really support your claim that the Ward seat requires less money or about Ward Councilors’ inability to raise money. You also raised over $10,000 in your first race, which was contested, but not against an incumbent. This is the race that you claimed to have raised “a little bit of money”. I am not sure how this illustrates that running for a Ward seat is less costly than running for an At Large seat?
@Karen — It was only a few weeks ago that Yes was lamenting that No had to “reach” to cite the example of a sane LOWV in Everett, WA where the LOWV is advocating for district-elected seats — not just district residency @SueFlicop — district-elected seats.
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/league-of-women-voters-make-the-case-for-ward-elected-city-council-seats
@Sue complaint came despite the LOWV knowing full well its just one of many many examples, so NO keeps on posting more examples (including Lowell just a few days ago) and now that is the problem. Again, I think the historical photograph facebook pulled from within the Atlantic article was offensive and I apologize for that. It should have been taken down and it was, but thanks to Greg, we’ll have it here now to continue to offend for posterity.
@Bryan — The last time I tried to reason with you with math, my my post didn’t survive your admin rights, so if you would feel more comfortable swapping the wolves and sheep in the example below that’s fine if it allows the argument to can stay up.
With regard to your very flawed bullet voting solution to minority representation lets have a look at Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_voting
“Candidates may seek to encourage bullet voting in certain situations. One example is where there is a Bloc voting election for two seats of the same office, and there are several candidates (say A, B, and C). Voters in such a situation typically have two votes. Candidate A encourages his voters to vote only for him and not use their second vote. If the second vote is cast for B or C, it helps A’s opponents. The situation is most pronounced where A is of one party and B and C are of another party. If voters from B and C’s party vote for them, while A’s partisans cast one vote for A and split their second vote between B and C, A is significantly disadvantaged.”
Suppose you have a city of 6 wolves and 4 sheep electing councilors to the pick-4 seats on your proposed 12 member all at-large council. How can bullet voting get any sheep elected? It can’t. The most votes the the sheep get for their very best candidate is 4 and the least the wolves get for their worst candidate is 6.
The only hope the sheep have is if the wolves get nervous and start bullet voting for a subset of wolves, and the sheep hang tough and use all their votes (e.g. the wolves fracture into two factions of 3 and waste their 2nd vote), or if they sheep are confused by the 8 candidate non-head-to-head ballot and only vote for a few sheep because they don’t have as many lawn signs.
This is likely what happened with the Worcester Republican in your example. It is a version of the “Prisoners Dilemma” and I see potentially playing out in some at-large races on 11/7.
In the same vein, lets suppose your organization Progressive Newton along with like-minded special interests had recommended a 9-candidate slate for the charter commission, and the 3.7% of residents it took to elect you hung together and voted for all nine, while the rest of the city, baffled by the 22 candidate non-head-to-head ballot, voted for the few thoughtful candidates they recognized from the other 13? How does that play out?
Now that’s just a hypothetical example because I don’t know who Progressive Newton endorsed on 11/2/2015 because the endorsement post is now strangely blank? Isn’t that a bit odd? https://progressivenewton.com/2015/11/02/progressive-newton-endorsements-for-election-day/
@Andrea: Fighting the anti democratic power grab proposed change to our city’s constitution is expensive.
@Andrea
Please stop whining. Norton was not handed her seat like so many sitting councilors (and two forthcoming – Walker-Grossman and Krintzman). She worked her tuchas off to win her seat, and continues to do so as a Ward Councilor. Additionally, if you have raised money for campaigns or non-profits, you know it requires both guts and tenacity. She gets an A+ in both of these categories.
@ByronBarash
You’ve been schooled. 😉