Nice try at parroting Matthew Owen and Chiv’s talking points, Fred

Fred Mangels

the poster in the background would now say Gary Johnson

Freddy: First question I had was what would the conservative arugment against P be? This being another one of those issues favored by Left or Right, but not both. This is also clearly a Left issue as it was introduced and worked through the city council by the so- called progressives. Those progressive council members also wrote the ballot argument supporting it.

Fred-first up this not a progressive city council. Liberal leaning? Maybe, but not progressive. Linda Aktins is progressive. Natalie Arroyo is kinda progressive. Kim Bergel….no way. Bergel could be described as left of center at best.

Freddy: If I were to ask my self- described conservative brother- in- law who has the No On P sign in his yard that question, I suspect his answer but be something like this:

“You know that’s just the Democrats pushing it so they can get more votes in city council races..”.

Nice try at parroting Matthew Owen and Chiv’s talking points, Fred. Take a look at Eureka vote totals over the last 30 years and you’ll see that if those elections were ward based; the Republican/Developers backed candidates would have almost always had the majority with only ward one being the only ward within reach of the Democratic Party candidates. The third ward has been 50-50. Wards two and four are reliably republican with ward 5 mostly siding Republican. So Fred, it doesn’t give Progressives an advantage vote wise.

Freddy: The main arguments proponents make in the sample ballot is that at- large voting is too expensive and too labor intensive making it difficult for candidates of lesser means to run. That is a valid point. I suggest it’s the same for both sides, although one side or another may be able to take better advantage of money or volunteers than the other. Either way, it generally affects both sides equally, at least at the start.

You’re either willfully ignorant or oblivious to the fact that the Republican/developer side has a massive cash advantage and they usually use it. 2010 was a prime example. What True Ward does do is provide an opportunity for neighborhood candidates to compete for a council seat with minimal funding.

Freddy: Proponents make mention in their argument of ward representation- that by having a council member living and elected by their ward (even under the at large system, council members have to live in a given ward to run for that ward’s seat on the council). They imply that would give a ward real representation.

Some years ago I e-mailed a council member whose name I can’t recall. I also can’t recall the issue. The council critter e-mailed back and said he wan’t on my ward’s seat so he’d forward it to the council guy that was in my ward. That was under the current system. Make what you will of that. I dropped it because it was a petty issue.

Not likely to happen in a true ward system Fred

 Freddy: John Chiv brought Measure P up on his blog not long ago. I commented there that if the system ain’t broke, why try and fix it? Another commentator replied that wasn’t a good argument. Maybe so, and I can see how someone might see that as simplistic as voting against it just because progressives support it.

What’s to say they won’t be emboldened by the ward system. What might they do then? I suspect as soon as the smoke cleared and they took a close look at voter registration lists, we’d see these very same people push to redraw ward boundaries……………….

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”


Good ole Mola says: Take a look at the City of Eureka and tell us it “ain’t broke.”

I think you are mostly correct when you say the City of Eureka does not have a “black” part of town, or a Hispanic part of town, etc. Yet there is a very clear economic divide where half the town is going to hell and the other isn’t.  (As an example, young folks with BB guns in their yards isn”t an uncommon experience around Sequoia park in east Eureka.   But a young person with a BB gun in west Eureka….that could be a death sentence. TE)

I would argue that economic divides are as real and pervasive as racial divides.

You are worried about Gerrymandering? Look at the wards as they are now… Your worry is a bit late.

Thanks MOLA


One thought on “Nice try at parroting Matthew Owen and Chiv’s talking points, Fred

  1. Pingback: Strike a real blow for democracy in Eureka | Tuluwat Examiner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s