.
.
.
We strained forward in our seats to hear tiny Lucille Kring, speaking in the hushed tones of a shocked gerbil, describe a nightmare dystopian vision of a future Anaheim under district elections:
“Let’s not fool ourselves, this is all about getting Democrats into power! In a few years, under districts, this council will have a Democrat majority, because that’s what the voters in the flatlands want. And you know what comes next…” Then, in an oddly unemotive monotone, the mayoral candidate catalogued the horrors to come, the features of an Anaheim beyond recognition: “A Disney gate tax. A living wage! Unionized hotel workers! Rent control!”
I wonder how many of those assembled Republicans (Wednesday night, at the Anaheim Republican Assembly meeting) thought uneasily to themselves, “If the majority of Anaheim voters want Democrats on the council, why aren’t there any? And what is it about at-large elections that prevents the majority of Anaheim voters from getting the representation they prefer? And is this right, and American, for us to hang on to a system that keeps the majority of Anaheim voters from getting the representation they prefer? And are we not (if we fight against this reform) a sort of shrinking, dying aristocracy desperately staving off the day of our inevitable obsolescence?”
Or how many thought, “Is this necessarily so? What if we Republicans had a few ideas and/or candidates that the Anaheim flatlanders liked?” In any case, Mayor Tom Tait dismissed Lucille’s partisan fearmongering: Partisanship is NOT the reason for the reform, and “So what if our Party loses a few seats, it’s not the end of the world, we’ll just have to try harder!”
As notable as the arguments was the difference in style between the Mayor and the wannabe-Mayor: Lucille, having broken every promise of consequence she made before her election onto council, including the promise to support districting, weakly recited her newly-memorized anti-democratic talking points, a pintsized packmule unburdened by conscience or scruple. While Tom, a man who has thought the issue through for several years and is absolutely sure where he stands, was able to comfortably and joyously extemporize.
Matt Cunningham’s Chamber-funded AnaheimBlog, while not widely read, seems to be the place where new arguments are tried out for the klepto class to use, in their efforts to keep the rest of Anaheim down. And sure enough, all of Lucille’s talking points were ripped from that den of hackery:
- Districting is a leftist or Democrat scheme to get more power.
- It will tear the city apart into competing fiefdoms.
- You are better off now with 4 or 6 councilmembers you can talk to than you would be with just one.
- And SOME cities that have district elections have gone bankrupt.
The Mayor made quick work of each of those canards. Bankrupt cities: Where’s the correlation? There are cities with districts that have gone bankrupt, there are cities with districts that are doing just fine, and there are cities with at-large elections that have gone bankrupt. The poster-child of bankruptcy, Detroit, has only just NOW switched to districts. Before the bankruptcy, when Detroit’s elections were at large, it was impossible to get into government without wedding yourself to either big business or big labor. Sound like a California city we know?
District elections will bring the people closer to their government, and bring the city closer together, insists the Mayor, and I agree with him. When a governed area becomes too large, its officials naturally answer to the biggest power and money in that area, not to the people who elected them. Tom named off example after example of all Anaheim’s resources going to the Resort District and the wealthy hills (which predictably led to denial from Lucille.) West Anaheim Republicans stood up to attest to the truth of Tom’s claims. “If California weren’t divided into assembly and senate districts, then Bob Huff [the senator representing Anaheim] probably wouldn’t even take my call,” contended the Mayor. “He’d be too busy paying attention to the rest of California.”
The Mayor went further: “Our Founding Fathers gave us district elections. It was after a lot of debate, and it was the right thing to do. Yes, our states are districts. If they hadn’t done that, then ALL of America’s affairs would be run by Wall Street, much more than they are now. And when states became too large they were broken into districts as well. And now it’s time for Anaheim.” [As always my paraphrase.]
The Orange Juice Blog obviously agrees with Mayor Tait on this [and his position is the same as the other two mayoral candidates, Galloway and Fitzgerald.] And we urge Anaheim to vote YES on both Measures L (district elections) and M (expanded Council.)
How many council members are there now and how many would there be when and if districts gets voted in by the electorate? Also, WTF? Did she really say that about flat-lander’s wanting a living wade? Good god woman!??
Now there’s 4 councilmembers plus a mayor.
Measure L for district elections wouldn’t change that. Each member would be elected by their district and the mayor at large.
But there’s also Measure M which has very little opposition, and that will increase the council to six members plus mayor.
Aside from the Mayor, there are four Council members. Aside from the question on by-districts, a second ballot measure will address whether to raise that number to 6. It should have been 8 or 10.
I kind of said all that. Except for the 8 or 10 part. But that does bring up another funny Lucille Kring story. When she met with me and Jason (and Cynthia? not sure) at the Starbux across from City hall two years ago, and assured us she was in favor of districts, she did have one worry – “There can’t be any more than six members though – THERE’S NOT ENOUGH ROOM ON THE DAIS FOR ANY MORE THAN THAT!”
I think you messed this gem of hers at the ARA on Wednesday.
“Sometimes it’s OK for people to change their mind.”
Well, Lucy, sometimes it isn’t. Saying something to get a vote then another to get a check is a fantastic example of the latter.
I like district elections
you get more for your money
“…a pintsized packmule unburdened by conscience or scruple.”
I want to wrap that up and tie it in a little bow.
Same here, VERY glad I was not taking a drink of coffee while reading this. “…a pintsized packmule unburdened by conscience or scruple.” love ya, Vern.
Lucille has developed a number of canned talking points, each more ridiculous than the last. For instance, under Districts, if we don’t like any of the candidates running for our District, we are forbidden to vote for someone in another District we DO like. Uh…yeah, and how is that different from what we have now? Maybe I won’t like my next choice for County Supe when Shawn Nelson moves on, I am currently forbidden from voting for the guy running for the 3rd or 1st Districts, it is called representative democracy, and it is up to us to develop the leaders in our own areas we want to encourage to run.
In fact, Lucille is the perfect example of the very compromise we currently deal with now…under At Large elections in 2012, the leader I most trusted to be honest and decent (Brian Chuchua) is not known for fundraising, and thus unlikely to reach enough voters to win. We were left to choose between the candidates I was not celebrating but who were viable….and of those choices we all held our noses and backed Lucille. Was she our first choice? Hell no. But of those running she was the most likely to be independent of special interests, since she clearly hated Curt Pringle (and about face she spun in a hurry when he gave her money!) and none of us remotely could foresee the monumental flip-flop she was capable of selling herself into in exchange for paying off her campaign debt. So why does she think the At Large system is not currently hampering voters choices? We will ALWAYS be limited to those willing to run, and if we have failed to encourage and support leaders we want to see in seats then it is our own fault and our neighborhoods will suffer the consequences. I expect that to last for maybe one or two cycles before we wise up and start incubating good leaders.
I think that is also when the Mayor meant when he said we might lose a few seats, he was NOT being cavalier about turning over the city to liberals, not by a long shot, he was saying we get the government we deserve, and it is up to us to choose wisely and live with the choices we make. In fact when bigots like Lucille and Cunningham argue that District elections will allow a bunch of Democrats to get elected, are they not making the very argument that the current At Large system PREVENTS their election, and thus confirming what some Anaheim residents went to court over?
Kring’s other canned presentation point is if leader “A” wants a fire station for their district and leader “B” wants a park and leader “C” wants a police station, and this year we all get along and you get your fire station, but next year we hate each other so I don’t get my park….uh….while I have heard her repeat this vision of an Anaheim run by cutting back-room deals, NOT ONCE have I heard her mention whether a district NEEDS a fire station more than someone else needs a park or community center or however she sees carving up the budget in an enormous tit for tat…what happened to running the city based on NEEDS and not quid pro quo? In Lucille’s mind this is not only what is done, but what is acceptable.
On the “hotseat” program Friday night, with Brian Calle (notice Matt C promoted Galloway’s appearance on the program but not Lucille’s?) Kring said what she brings to the Mayor’s race is the ability to build consensus, and again referenced a need to “talk to your Council, find about what their own agendas are”…again in her head it is all big game of “let’s make a deal” and I know it is naive to believe otherwise, but her outspoken promotion of running the city on a handshake makes me physically sick. I also want to know WHERE Lucille claims to be having these conversations with the Council…it is not DURING Council meetings where it is supposed to take place. Go look at EVERY major funding decision these miscreants have forced onto the taxpayers. Gardenwalk, Convention Center, Stadium, Streetcar, they are all approved WITHOUT DISCUSSION OR DELIBERATION unless Council throws out some leading questions to staff to try debunking the Mayor (who is misleading the public, right?) or challenging the public (who have been misled by the Mayor?) because we are all “politically motivated and misinformed”…but you review those videos (Or I can post the transcripts) and there is NO DELIBERATIVE PROCESS taking place between these people, no sense of intellectual curiosity, they enter the room chomping at the bit to vote YES for the projects before them, clearly already prepped for the affirmative vote their benefactors expect of them. The idea of Lucille making that even more commonplace a practice than it already is makes me need to hurl. Or call law enforcement.
The scariest thing about Lucille’s dystopian view of Anaheim? Mayor Kring. Shudder…..
It will end up like Santa Ana. A land of poorly educated upward mobiles on the take. The power won’t change. It will just give some democrats the chance to fuck things up for a change.
Hopefully not. You make me wonder whether you know Santa Ana does NOT have district elections, the by-district elections Anaheim is looking at. You guys just have residency-by-ward requirements, everyone still has to run at large.
Santa Ana SHOULD have district elections, then you might have a white, a Viet, and a conservative or two, on your august body.
Your occasional reminder that there are far better election systems than EITHER at-large, first-past-the-post OR by-district, first-past-the-post:
http://kitchenmudge.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/are-we-as-smart-as-tasmanians/
…not that this has anything to do with what’s currently before Anaheim voters.
WARNING: “Internet Age” trope
Do I really need to remind you that people are far less likely to form interests and associations according to geographic proximity than in the 18th century, when our election laws were taking form? That’s what various forms of “proportional representation” are about, and some of them don’t require any association by political party.
*Cynnie, let us tell you about District Elections. Ever heard of Newport Beach? We have 89,000 souls and Seven Village Idiots running the entire operation. Every year, the seven vote to see who they want to become Mayor. Then 2nd choice gets to be Mayor Pro Tem………….they get their choice of tasty and paying committee assignments at both the City and County level….and sometimes at the State level. Now, here is what happens during the election cycle: Each District allows as many as want to to run, but they need to live in the same District they are running for 1 thru 7. Their is no Primary……..you get one shot during the big election. You must win by one vote or more. The average cost of running today is just around $60,000 dollars. Oh, you can run for a lot less and spend the minimum $5 grand and get your name on the ballot……but with Dave Ellis or Kenny the Printer….you are not going to win squat. What Lucille is talking about is District allocation. If you have three Districts in Anaheim that have nothing but Hispanics……it would look pretty weird to find three “Whitey’s” elected there. You see, here in Newport Beach everyone in the city gets to vote for all seven districts. Don’t forget….we do not elect our Mayor……he is elected fo a two year term by his peers on the dias. Lucille is quite right……..If Anaheim goes to District Representation………..they will either have a three-two majority or if you break up the city into seven districts………a four-three majority. There may never be another white Mayor of Anaheim…….ever. Which of course is just fine, since you have a Hispanic majority of voters. Anyway…….they need the same thing in Fullerton. We are just grateful we have wonderful Diane Dixon running in District one – Unopposed! She just happens to be the sister of our dear friend Wendy Leece. Anyway, OC Politics….does
anyone take this stuff seriously? Really?
Under Measures L and M, the Mayor of Anaheim would still be elected directly. Judging from the crop running this year, there’s about a 7/8 chance that he or she would be white. As if that matters.
*PS…….not to confuse everyone…..but we now live in District #2…….and used to live in District #4. Many years ago…..we lived in District #3……….anyway……no more voting “At Large City Council Spots”. Unconstitutional…you know! Or should be, even if they overturn the current latest Judicial reading of the matter.
District only elections takes away the people right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Is that a part the democratic platform? First district elections, then party boss appointments, ending with a fascist dictatorship.
After dealing with nipsey, it’s sort of a nice change of pace to deal with someone who is superficial and close to insane.
Yeah, district elections will lead inexorably to fascism, just as the division of the nation into states, counties, and municipalities did. You’re onto us. Damn, if we only could have held on for another couple of months!
*District Only? Hmmm. We would not support any measure which restricts your vote to only your own District. Any citizen of the any city….needs to vote for anyone running in any District of the their City…..not just their own.
Maybe that’s fine for Newport Beach where you’re all the same. Rich, and white.
*Actually, we have never had a miniority ethnic city council member…..all
according to plan as you might expect. We consider women our ethnic minority and we have had more than a token assortment of those folks..so don’t be picking on us. Heck, we even supported Jack Wu…..but…..he didn’t make it.
This seems like a good place for the post that Wally Courtney put up on the “Keep the Angels” Facebook Page — only to have it promptly taken down. I’ve added paragraph spacing.
Well done.
Are we going to address this somehow at our Angels page?
*Amazing coincidence that the Angels are suddenly making the play-offs this year. Where have they been in the last eight seasons? Whatever,,,,,,if you don’t think professional sports are dirty…..just take a quick peek at Roger Goodell and his latest “45 minutes of Lame”.