Hence why SF should adopt a hybrid approach with at least two at large seats.
-
-
-
Free ideas: 1) Keep all 11 districts and add two at-large seats with the top vote getter becoming Board President. 2) Move to a system with six districts and five at-large seats where, again the top vote getter would serve as Board President.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
District elections increase pressure on politicians to oppose housing in their district. But SF's citywide Board never pushed upzonings either, and I describe in Generation Priced Out how pre-2000 citywide supes also fought housing.
@SFyimby@MattGrossmann -
The counter is that district elections are easier for grassroots, low dollar candidates to win. Maybe not in San Francisco but in most 100,000 or less cities you can have a small team canvass your 20,000 population/10,000 voter district relatively easily
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
All about right sizing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Strong argument in favor of citywide elections.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
District elections are also associated with increases in racial minority group elected representation, compared to at-large, which, for me, has been a higher priority.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Citywide elections also have issues. Often leads to far less diverse representation.
-
Then let’s have proportional representation.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.