Previous Issue - August, 2004
 click here for current issue

Before I continue with the topic begun in last month’s article, I would like to repeat the question I posed near the end: “Have you ever considered that “the basis by which a city or county is sub-divided into districts” might be a factor not sufficiently understood and therefore overlooked in terms of weighing the “advantages” or “disadvantages” of each of the two methods [at-large or single-district] for electing your city or county representatives?”  To provoke some thought on your part, I provided the following facts:

Districts are sub-divisions of cities and counties.  Each district within a city or county has a population equal to the other districts; and, combined, they comprise the city’s or county’s population.  Chances are, “population” is probably the one and only thing that any district has in common with the others.  Meanwhile every other trait or bit of demographic data associated with the county or city overall is most likely distributed in varying degrees amongst each of its districts.  Hence, each district comprises a portion of the whole but is not identical to the others EXCEPT FOR POPULATION COUNT.  But, what about the county’s or city’s distribution of registered voters – the only ones who can vote to elect their representatives?  Would it matter if, unlike the equal distribution of the total population among a county’s or city’s districts, the distribution of a county’s or city’s total registered voters varied significantly as a percentage of total population in each district???

I’m sure the above has caused some of you to ask yourselves, “So what’s the point here?”  But, the more important question then becomes, “What was the point the county’s or city’s electorate had in mind when they drafted charters which called for equally-populated districts; while at the same time, they stipulated that the elected governing body would be comprised of one elected representative from each district, with each of them being elected ‘at large’ rather than by ‘single-district’ method?”

In fact, more to the point was a question my husband, Jack, posed to me a few months ago after reading an article in the local paper about the county’s Charter Review Committee deliberating whether they should stick with the “status quo” of commissioners being elected “at-large” or change the charter to provide for them being elected by the “single-district” method.  That question was – “Why even bother having districts if the representatives of the people are elected ‘at-large’ rather than by the voters in each of their respective districts?”  I started to provide what I believed to be the rationale; however, suddenly I realized I had to take into account the form of city government to which my husband had been accustomed before moving to Punta Gorda.  So let me digress long enough to establish the mindset of my husband – the individual to whom I was going to be providing an answer to the above question.  It’s worth explaining, as I believe many who reside in our city came from other areas of the country where the mindset would have been similar to his.

Being a former resident of Chicago, my husband was indoctrinated into the concept of a city’s governing body being comprised of officials elected by the voters of their individual districts (or “wards” as they call them in Chicago) to whom they were then accountable.  When election time approached, it was the voters of the individual wards who would be, through the voice of their votes, evaluating the performance of the individual who had represented their district of the city in comparison to the particular ward’s expectations and likewise evaluating the expressed priorities of those seeking election to the seat for the upcoming term in comparison to any of the ward’s yet-unfulfilled as well as more recent expectations.  In short, Chicago’s concept of municipal government causes the representatives (or “aldermen” as they refer to them) of each of its wards – of which there are 50 -- to view their responsibility as getting the most benefit from the government as they can for the people in their particular “ward.”  However, it is important to note that this method of electing representatives to the city’s governing body and the manner in which those representatives view their responsibility as being directly to the people within their respective wards, works hand in hand with that city’s “strong mayor” form of government.  Chicago’s mayor is elected by the city’s voters “at-large,” is not part of the city’s council of 50 aldermen, and has significant powers and prerogatives he can exercise in his role as mayor.  Of further importance is the fact that their system of governing is also heavily dependent upon the degree of influence (political persuasion) certain of the aldermen may have over others in advancing priorities of their wards with the Mayor versus those representing other wards.  Finally, one additional important distinction between that city’s government and ours is that Chicago’s aldermen are not subject to a law similar to that of Florida’s “Sunshine Law”.  (In mentioning that, incidentally, I think it’s important you know that, if our city were to have a “strong mayor” form of government and the charter then stipulated that the mayor was not part of the city’s legislative body (city council), Florida’s Sunshine Law in that instance would not apply – that is to say, it would not require discussions between a city council member and the city’s mayor (as the chief executive officer of the administrative branch of government) to be conducted “in the sunshine,” for the benefit of the public’s knowledge.

Meanwhile, in contrast to my husband’s indoctrination into that concept of city government with which he’s most comfortable, our city’s “at-large” method of election and the connotation that it implies has always caused me to view my city council member role and responsibilities as encompassing service to and representation of all the people in Punta Gorda – not just the people of District 2.  (Perhaps that perception of my position is also due to the fact that there is no other individual, such as a mayor who would exist in a “strong mayor” form of government, who would be elected to represent all the people of the city and have the appropriate powers and prerogative necessary to hold that individual directly accountable to the city’s entire electorate.

Now, with the knowledge of my husband’s concept of a city government and my concept in contrast to his, let’s look at the answer I provided in response to his question – “Why even bother having districts if the representatives of the people are elected ‘at-large’ rather than by the voters in each of their respective districts?”  My answer was … “If we didn’t have the city divided into equally-populated districts and require that the council be comprised of one elected representative from within each of the districts, chances are all five of the council members would probably end up residing within the deed-restricted communities of Punta Gorda Isles and Burnt Store Isles.”  In other words, the formation of districts and the stipulation that each district is permitted to have only one resident occupying a seat on the city council ensure that the city’s governing body will reflect, as nearly as possible, a representative cross-section of the city’s entire population and demographics.  It also ensures a flow of two-way communication between government and the people residing in each of those areas.

“Fine,” replied my husband; “But following the line of thinking or rationale leading to the answer you provided, it stands to reason that each of the districts should be electing the representative who will occupy the seat for that district so that the people in a particular district have someone on the city’s council fighting for those things the people in that district expect – want or need – from their city’s government.”  Needless to say, his response to the answer I provided appears to be worthy food for thought, were it not for the differences in his concept versus mine of a city government’s structure and how it is meant to function.  In other words … if I were elected by my “single district” rather than “at large” and the connotation in that case implied that I was to regard my district rather than the city’s majority as my first priority, how would I go about getting my district’s expectations met, while at the same time each of the other council members would be striving to do likewise for his/her respective district?  Unless, of course, a particular expectation of my district was one shared in common with two other districts; in which case, wouldn’t three out of five districts’ people constitute something that is an expectation of the majority in the city???  On the other hand, were I to have honed my skills of “political persuasion” to a level superior to that of my fellow council members, then, in all probability I could have a “negotiating” edge or advantage over the others in securing greater benefit for my district than the other four.  Stated another way, wouldn’t that mean that I would then be serving the benefit of a one-fifth minority more than concerning myself with the other four-fifths majority?  With the “at-large” method of electing us, on the other hand, doesn’t the potential for one council member having a unique advantage over the other and thereby garnering more advantage for their individual district than the others, work against them when it comes time for seeking re-election by a city-wide electorate?

It was at that point in my discussion with my husband that he admitted his concept of city government does, of course, rely heavily upon political persuasion -- the political clout one district or “ward” might have over another’s, as well as the better skills of using political clout to one’s advantage in bringing home the bacon to one’s own district or “ward.”  But, to him, “it works” … simply on the basis of a competitive philosophy rather than a team-building cohesive philosophy which addresses what the majority expects or is viewed as being best for the majority.  Neither way is right or wrong, or better than the other.  It’s a matter of the mindset and philosophy with which the majority is most comfortable and considers the best means to the end – the mission of the city as a whole.

But before I close this exploration of which is better – “at-large” or the “single-district” method of electing your council members, I’d like to introduce one further aspect into the discussion, as I did in bringing the discussion between me and my husband to a close.  But before I do so, I’d like you to go back to the top of this article and re-read the text contained in the indented portion of the first paragraph.

Having digested that information, consider that we presently have a population of approximately 15,000 (15, 236 based on most recent estimates available through resources available to our City Clerk’s office).  That equates to a population of approximately 3,000 per district, considering we have a total of five districts in the city and the charter stipulating that the population must be equally-divided amongst the city’s districts.  Further, consider that it is often said the benefit of being a registered voter is that it gives one the right to have a voice, through their vote, in the manner in which they are governed.  Yet not all comprising our city’s population or that of any of our districts are registered to vote.  In fact, according to records in our City Clerk’s office, at the time of our February 2004 city elections, we had a total of 13,784 registered voters in our city who were eligible to vote in city elections.  Of that registered-voter potential, the total who exercised their voting privilege and responsibility in the February 2004 city elections amounted to 4,239* ballots.  In other words, less than 30% of our city’s registered voters cast ballots in our city’s elections this past February, or less than 28% of our city’s current population – a minority of less than one third of our city’s population exercised their voice regarding the manner in which they wish to be governed … the results of which were then imposed on the remaining two thirds who either chose not or were not able to be involved in that outcome.  Sadly, the fact is that none of the council members has ever been elected as the result of a majority voice of the city’s population according to records over the past few decades.  The same applies to the election of the county’s commissioners.  Nevertheless, those so elected through the long-utilized “at-large” method represented the choice of a majority cross-section of registered voters throughout the city.  Another way of saying it would be … each council member’s election to office was attained by the same number of voters casting a vote for each of the council seats up for election in February 2004.  And that is due solely to the fact that our city council elections follow the “at-large” method.  Had city council elections been governed, instead, by the “single-district” method, realize that the average results we would have realized would have been less than 850 votes cast to determine who would fill each of the council seats up for re-election.  In even-year elections, that would have been the number of votes determining who filled each of three seats up for election – a majority of seats out of the total five.  However, in a ”single-district” voting scenario, the “real” vs. “average” votes cast per district could vary drastically from one district to another when you realize that our city’s districts might have equal populations but they most definitely do not have equal numbers of registered voters or equal numbers of those voters who actually cast votes in city elections.  So, in a “single-district” voting scenario, there is no equal basis by which one candidate ascends to office in his/her district versus another who ascends to the same level office.  All each council member would have in common with the other four is that each secured the majority of votes cast in their particular district to earn their district’s seat.  That “majority” of votes garnered by a candidate from within one district of the city could easily be as low as 100-200 votes, compared to votes totaling well over 1,000 for the winning candidate in another district.  Because, in “single-district” voting scenarios as previously pointed out, it depends on how many in the district are registered voters; and of them, how many actually exercise the power of their vote.  Yet each elected council member’s vote will be equal in weight to that of the other council members’ votes when decisions come before the city council which are to be decided for the greater good of the city as a whole.

Please click here  for additional information or if you would like to contact the author of this article, Marilyn Smith-Mooney. Thank you!