The city council of Santa Clarita is organized as a council-manager form of government. There are five city council members, and they are responsible for establishing policy, voting on appropriations, and passing ordinances. They are the overall supervising authority for the city government.
These five council members are currently elected from the community at large. But as our city continues to grow, should we consider other options for our local governance? Let’s consider some alternatives.
One alternative to this would be to split the city up into voting districts, where each council member would live in and represent an area of the city. This is known in political science as a ‘single-member voting district’.
Some people feel that the various neighborhoods would be better represented by being split into voting districts. For instance, some residents of Canyon Country have felt their needs and desires underrepresented in years past. And, perhaps, if voting districts were established by neighborhoods, it might encourage the west side communities to annex, as they might feel their specific needs and interests would be better represented.
But what is the flip side to this arrangement? It can pit neighborhood against neighborhood instead of taking the best interests of the city at heart, and it could potentially create a more political council-person, as he/she would attempt to cater to their particular district to ensure reelection. It also can prevent minority representation, as candidates whose support is scattered geographically usually cannot garner enough votes in a single district to win an office.
Another alternative which allows for a proportional representation of a wider range of interests and perspectives is to increase the number of city council seats. This will give more chances to candidates who represent a minority interests. A minority interest is any thing under 50%, so although they might be ‘minority’, they still can represent a substantial portion of the population.
For example, a candidate who represents environmental interests might have a significant amount of support citywide, and would stand a chance of election in an at-large council member election, such as we have now. If we were divided into districts, then such a candidate would have to garner enough votes to win a majority within the district – a difficult task. If the current city council was expanded, but still elected at large, there would be more seats up for election and an even greater chance such a candidate would be able to win a seat. The minority interests would win seats based on their representation in the population.
Having minority interests represented is a healthy thing, as it demands the council consider a wider range of views and perspectives. It demands more consensus building and compromise to create policies and make changes.
The national political system of the United States is made up almost entirely of single-member voting districts. This is considered among scholars to be the reason why our political system is a two-party system, whereas most other democratic nations are multi-party. In countries that use proportional representation, the number of representative seats is in proportion to the votes received. This allows for representation of smaller political parties who represent a substantial, but not majority, of the population.
So the question is, do you think the city council remain the way it is, increase the number of seats, or split the city into districts?
What do you think? Feel free to answer the survey and/or comment. All opinions welcome!!
To take the survey, hit your browser's 'back' button, and look for the survey in the far right hand pane, underneath the box titled "Search". You do not need to be a SCVTalk member to vote. Is it time for changes on the city council?
Comments (11)