I know, I know. The body’s still warm. But, the No victory was a Charter Commission own goal. (Mixed metaphor violation noted.)

The commission ignored the widely predicted political consequence of choosing city-wide voting for ward-tethered councilor candidates, jeopardizing the other important features of the proposed charter: most notably the smaller council. Much better sacrificed on the altar of perceived perfection.

But, yesterday’s results give some indication that the difference between much better and perfect was overblown. Yesterday’s results provided some solid evidence that the commission’s insistence on city-wide voting for ward-tethered councilors was unnecessary. The commission’s concern was that a ward would be able to foist on the city a councilor that would not win city-wide. On the flip side, the No folks were worried that the city would force on the ward a candidate who would not be the choice of ward voters. 

Let’s look at Ward 5. In the at-large race, we had Brian Yates, who by reputation provides very effective constituent service and is highly tuned to the needs of the ward. On the other hand, we had Andreae Downs, the prototypical city-wide candidate. She’s a long-time member of the League of Women Voters (LWV). She’s very active in city affairs, most notably as the chair of the mayor’s Transportation Advisory Group (TAG). (Disclosure, I’m also on TAG.) And, she gathered endorsements from folks all over the city. (She has also been active with the Highlands Area Council, but is not a member.) If ever there were a race that would provide the long-threatened but rarely (never?) occurring instance where the ward preference was different than the city preference, this would be it. Right?

So, who won Ward 5? Brian or Andrea? Actually, neither. Deb Crossley won the ward, with 1732 votes. But, Andrea was the ward’s clear preference over Brian: 1521 to 1303. Andrea beat Brian in 3 out of 4 precincts. Brian beat both Deb and Andrea in 5-1.

The commission chose at-large voting for ward-tethered councilor candidates out of concern that the city preference would differ from the ward preference. To be fair, the No voters were animated by the same concern, just looking at in through a different lens. While a single race isn’t dispositive, the Ward 5 at-large race does suggest that the concern on both sides was overblown. 

Yes, it’s more complicated than a single election. The commission was also concerned about ward voters’ response to actions that a sitting councilor would take, which the Ward 5 at-large race doesn’t shed much light on. But, there’s another race that suggests things wouldn’t be as dire as the commission worried: the Ward 4 ward race.

An error the commission made was to focus on past results and past behaviors to drive their decision about who should vote for ward-tethered councilors. What they appeared to ignore was the fact that new rules would result in new behaviors. As the Ward 4 race showed, the legitimate interest in and support for a ward candidate from folks outside the ward is not insignificant. Without taking anything away from the heroic effort Allison made to nearly snatch a difficult victory, she clearly attracted interest to the race from outside of the ward. That interest and energy surely contributed to her close second.

With only 13 races to attend to, residents would be able to afford to spend time, money, and energy on races outside their ward, even if they wouldn’t be able to actually vote in them. The threat of ward capture seems remote, at best.

If the commission had paid more attention to the politics of removing ward councilors, looked harder at the record in city-wide races, and thought harder about the political dynamics of new rules, they might have come to a different decision about ward representation. And, today, we might be celebrating the overwhelming victory of a new charter with a smaller council.

Good news, it’s not too late. And, I don’t mean 8/8.