Sound Politics: Another good use of the online voter database

March 29, 2006

Another good use of the online voter database

Reader Gordy Lindstrom from Everett e-mailed on his use of our online version of the statewide voter database

The attached map was made using the voter data base you have put on-line, thanks. Also, this news story in the Everett Herald was written and used the information.

Some simple facts about City of Everett elected officials:

* There are 19 neighborhood areas in Everett, and 5 of the 7 City Council members and the Mayor live in 1 neighborhood.
* There are 91 voting precincts in Everett and 4 of the 7 City Council members live in 1 precinct.

It looks like the group of elected officials elected from this small area doesn’t see any problem with this type of grouping of elected officials and will opposite any plan to create districts in the City that would eliminate this type of grouping in the future.

I agree that district elections are better than at-large elections. And I'm pleased to learn that readers are finding the online voter database useful.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 29, 2006 01:29 PM | Email This

Comments

1. I have always found the at-large elections in Seattle to be absurd. I am sure it is just as absurd in Everett.

There have been many attempts to change them, even a few votes, I think.

I doubt very highly a measure would ever pass as the people who are voting in the cookie-cutter councilmen are going to be the same ones deciding the outcome of any measure to remove their current voting power.

What a joke!

Posted by: asdfasdf on March 29, 2006 02:12 PM

2. I bet the same is true for the liberal North End of Tacoma and those elected to review the charter. Representation, that's so 20th Century. In today's world, all you need are a few enlightened Progressives that will decide with "compassion and vision" how we should all be living.

Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Posted by: Jeff B. on March 29, 2006 02:25 PM

3. Seattle is the only place I ever lived that had the City Council elected at large. Could not believe it - it virutually ensures that local politics will be run by a group of elitists with no connection to the vast majority of the city.

Of course, this fully explains how Seattle's politics is so monolithic and leftist when by any measure it should be much different. It also makes the status quo a certainty in any election - the names may change, but he politics won't.

Posted by: H Moul on March 29, 2006 02:45 PM

4. As long as there are equal voters in each district. The active people and the numbers of voting people all live in that geographic area.

And I don't mean 'registered' voters. The area Mr. Lindstrom pointed out doesn't have more than a couple hundred voters in a city of 100,000. Why should they get their own councilman?

A better representation would be better, yes. But how would you break it out? A lot of people in the other areas don't vote regularly. And there is no way to get them active.

This ain't Seattle.

Posted by: swatter on March 29, 2006 03:31 PM

5. The best way to do it is randomly. If a 2nd grader were tasked with drawing boundaries for electoral districts, there would be a more random sampling of voters in each district.
It is obvious that most politicians would live in the same area. They will all live in rich nice areas. If a politician's neighborhood was full of crime, prostitutes, etc, (s)he would simply assign resources to clean it up, and to drive up the value of their own house.

Posted by: Jason Woodruff on March 29, 2006 04:14 PM

6. Stefan,

Thanks for posting the information and story on your blog.

I would welcome any feedback from your readers and I will provide their feedback to the Everett Charter Review Commission that is currently in a 10 year review cycle.

The 2 questions going forward as I see it are:
#1. Does the current make up of the City Council in fact and appearances give someone the feeling that all citizens have equal and fair representation?
#2. If the answer to question #1 is no, then how do you solve that problem?

Thank you in advance for any responses or comments,

Gordy Lindstrom

Posted by: Gordy Lindstrom on March 29, 2006 04:47 PM

7. Gordy - Thanks much for digging up this information. Could you describe that neighborhood for those of us who are not familiar with Everett?

Posted by: Jim Miller on March 29, 2006 04:57 PM

8. Jim,

The Northwest Neighborhood, where the concentrations of elected officials are located is an older neighborhood that is located north of downtown. It is the location where many of Everett's founding family homes were located. The precinct that has the 4 councilmember’s is titled “Everett 1”

From observation I would guess that the property values and incomes for this area would be in the upper 25% - and even higher at the western and northern sides where the elected officials are located. You would not find multi-family homes or apartments in this area.

As I understand it, there are a larger percentage of registered and actual voters in this area (and other northern areas of the City) than in the southern parts of the City.

The City of Everett’s geography is a longer rectangular shape. The areas to the north are the original city limits and the locations to the south have been annexed into the City. As I understand it the southern 1/2 to 1/3 of the current City has been annexed over the last 30 years or so.

Hope that helps, Gordy

Posted by: Gordy Lindstrom on March 29, 2006 05:50 PM

9. Gordy - Many thanks. And much food for thought. For instance, from your description, I'd bet the neighborhood has much lower crime rates than the rest of Everett.

Posted by: Jim Miller on March 30, 2006 05:06 AM

10. That's unfortunate for Everett residents and they miss out on diversity of dicussion at their council meetings as a result. The city I live, Pasco, has a hybrid approach. 5 of the 7 are districts where candidates must live. In the primary only voters of their district vote, but in the general they are voted by all of the city. 2 of the 7 are "at-large" and are voted on in the primary and general by the whole city.

The effect is that a resident has one councilmember that represents their district specifically, two council members that represent the city at large including them, and 4 other council members that are other districts. In our case it's not usually a tension, but adds an element that helps represent the WIDE diversity of our city.

In Washington State each city has the local option to do it how they want.

Posted by: Matt W on March 30, 2006 09:28 AM

11. Issaquah doesn't seem to be much different. All eight city council members live within 1.5 miles of each other as the crow flies. Two live about 500 feet from each other. A cluster of four of them all live within a half mile radius of each other.

Posted by: ccw1220 on March 30, 2006 01:03 PM

12. If you use Stefan's database and use the names of council from about four years ago, five of seven were from a different part of town. Seems to change, it seems.

Since, geographically, the area for the town is small compared to a 1/2 million Seattle or multi-million King County, district by district representation of the seven doesn't make sense.

But, if you could break the district's out into real voters (over broken glass on hands and knees types), I would think three or four districts and the rest at large would work.

Posted by: swatter on March 31, 2006 01:12 PM