Geov Parrish has weighed in against the current version of district elections that will be on the November ballot. I know that other progressives and even a few neighborhood activists either are unsure or may be leaning against it. Then too there are a few PR (proportional representation) folks out there actively campaigning against district elections.

I strongly believe that all of us who care about economic and social justice, the preservation of the physical and social character of our neighborhoods, overcoming racism and racial inequality, and building more democracy into city decision-making should be working to get this version of district elections approved in November. The current move to district elections is our only hope for overcoming downtown and other corporate interests that now have a near total lock on city hall.

Geov doesn't like the current version of district elections, a proposal that would replace all nine at-large council seats with a system that elects each councilmember by district. Instead, he prefers a mixed system with six elected by district and three elected at-large. Somehow, the presence of these three city-wide seats would help block special interests and power-hungry mayors that otherwise might dominate the Council. He also raises the specter of ward politics, graft, and corruption.

This version of district elections ain't bad and it's a lot better than what we've got now!

As we all bloody well know, the fears Geov has raised are pretty much the kind of conditions that currently prevail under our at-large system. Special interests nearly always carry the day at City Hall. Witness the shameless catering to Paul Allen in South Lake Union, developers in Northgate, and the U-Dub's expansionist plans for the U-District. As it is, the Mayor rarely is challenged by the majority on the council. It is this absence of any real opportunity to shape public policy that is beating citizens into the ground. Citizens are as fed up as I've ever seen them, as evidenced by these most recent primaries. But few neighborhood or activist candidates stepped forward to challenge incumbents, and few ever will because we all know it's darn near impossible to unseat a pro-downtown incumbent with the power of money and name familiarity, in an at-large election.

Yes, it is true that we now have some progressive pro-neighborhood representation on the City Council. But they are a distinct minority (I count three and a great risk that we're going to lose one in this election) and in each case, unusual circumstances created opportunities for these candidates to get themselves elected. (In the first place, they all were running for open seats). In my 28 years of involvement in City politics, I can count only a couple of instances where incumbents were unseated (never by a progressive or neighborhood candidate) and only four or five progressives ever elected to the Council. Progressives simply can't get elected on a regular basis under our system of at-large elections. But with small enough districts, grassroots groups can go door-to-door to reach literally every voter with their message. Campaigns would be affordable again.

This is not Chicago. Rather than party or partisan politics, in Seattle it is neighborhood and issue-based groups that believe in democracy, community control, and racial and economic justice who are held in check by a system of at-large seats. If you do a six-district/three-at large-system, it means you've given the downtown three seats and the rest of us six seats. Also, by dividing the city into only six very large districts you would dramatically reduce the ability of grassroots groups to reach every voter door-to-door and to overcome big money with shoe leather.

If we wait for PR (proportional representation) to save the day, we could be waiting a very long time. Those PR folks who are actively working to kill district elections are killing our only hope for progressive politics.

It is this rich mix of advocacy groups and especially the presence of neighborhood groups organized along geographic lines that mitigates against ever generating enough support or critical mass to pass an initiative for proportional representation. PR systems work best in the context of partisan and party-based politics which are virtually non-existent here in terms of their impact on city policy. With few exceptions our council is a bunch of corporate liberals. The local dominant political culture is overwhelmingly corporate liberal.

Where the diversity exists is out in the neighborhoods and it's usually organized along geographic lines. (Sometimes it is issue-based.) That's where a volcano of opposition lies dormant, every so often erupting to fight against the egregious actions of our elected "leaders." We're "anti's" because we're left with no other choice but to demonstrate, appeal, sue, and otherwise fight back. Occasionally we even win by turning back a bad law or turning back big developer projects like the Olympic Games or Commons-size projects that would ransack our communities. Occasionally a rascal or two might even be swept from office. It's district elections that holds the greatest potential to focus this energy on meaningful long-term change.

I support proportional representation (PR) in principle. It certainly makes sense and has allure to progressives, although coursework seems to be required for anyone, let alone the average voter, to truly understand it. Given its complexity, lack of voter interest in it, and the underlying fact that our city is organized more along geographic lines than party or ideological lines, all these factors mitigate against it ever seeing its way onto the ballot let alone ever garnering majority support.

A few PR supporters, frustrated with their inability to spark interest in it (even among progressives), have decided to take out their frustrations on district elections, joining the likes of the Downtown Seattle Association, Muni League, and League of Women Voter-types to oppose it. If PR rather than district elections was on the ballot I'd cast my lot with that cause, not join a phone bank with the likes of George Griffin of the Alki Foundation to oppose it for goodness sake!

Some have argued that a district system will give rise to NIMBYism and stall important regional or city-wide efforts. The current at-large system simply enables one set of interests--downtown and corporate interests--to dominate these larger decisions while our neighborhoods, poor people, and communities of color are left to absorb the costs and impacts. A district system helps ensure that both the costs and benefits of city and region-wide decisions are shared. Gridlock occurs when people and neighborhoods are not given a real say in decisions that affect them and they fight back. When making decisions about where more density will go if at all, where institutions will locate, how to distribute needed social services and low income housing, I would place more trust in nine councilmembers elected with grassroots support, including people who I helped elect and have a better chance to influence.

Do we really want these decisions to continue to be made by a group of unaccountable "at-large electeds" who look mainly for direction to Seattle Times editors, the Chamber of Commerce, and folks in power-suits carrying briefcases? We either live with a moribund status quo (that may get even worse after this election in spite of all the anti-incumbent sentiment out there) or we fight like hell for this version of district elections that's now on the ballot.

Quite literally, this may be our last chance for a very long time to give government back to the community. That's what this version of district elections creates--not a guarantee--but at least an opportunity for citizens to have a say again in public policy. It may not be the ideal approach but it's all we've got going for us and we have a real chance at getting it approved, given voter disenchantment with the status quo. Let's go for it!