“The government closest to
the people serves
the people best”
- Thomas Jefferson
The citizen group Nine Districts for MoCo's petitions have been approved by the Montgomery County Board of Elections, meaning that voters will have the chance in the November election to vote to change the structure of the Council from 5 district and 4 at-large seats to 9 district seats. Two key reasons the proposed question received strong support from residents were the oversized, gerrymandered districts that sprawl across the County, and that a majority of the Council all live in the same vicinity of Takoma Park, leaving upcounty voters in particular with less representation on the Council. Fearing the ballot question would be approved, the Montgomery County Council ginned up its own ballot question on the Council structure in the dark of night, to serve as a poison pill if voters approve the Nine Districts Question D.
The Council's Question C proposes to keep the Council as it is, but add an additional two district seats, at great additional annual cost for staff and operations. On its face, it would appear to be merely a selfish attempt by the current members to preserve their seats. And it certainly is that. But the Council above all seeks to sabotage the voters' will through Question C, just as it infamously did with the ambulance fee.
Even the order of the questions has been rigged by the corrupt Council. Note that its undemocratic ballot question, which was rammed through at the end of a session with no public process, input or comment, was placed before the citizen-endorsed Nine Districts Question D on the November ballot.
The farther down the ballot an office, question or referendum is, the less likely it is to be voted upon by less diligent voters. But the Council isn't merely hoping you'll tire out before you to get to Question D.
In fact, they're not worried if you vote for both - because if their poison pill Question C and the Nine Districts Question D both get approved by a majority of voters, likely out of confusion, the matter of changing the Council structure would then go to the courts. And we all know the Montgomery County cartel almost never loses in any court within the borders of Maryland.
This is why it's essential, if you are dissatisfied with the current Council, to vote FOR Question D and AGAINST Question C.
We all know that even if the Nine Districts Question D passes, that the Council will try its darnedest to once again gerrymander the districts to ensure that only one party can possibly win. They may be shaped even more absurdly than the wacky ones splattered across the map today.
But even these gerrymandered nine new districts would, by the rules of mathematics, have to be geographically smaller. Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest thinkers in human history, said, “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” No longer would one tiny area within the downcounty have the power to control up to six out of the nine seats on the Council. And it would be far less likely for seven of the nine councilmembers to live downcounty, as they do now.
It's virtually unprecedented in County history to have a poison pill ballot question designed to sabotage another, where a victory by both sends the entire matter into legal oblivion. But then this Council increasingly has fought an unprecedented ideological war against the very constituents it represents.
So unpopular are its policies that residents approved term limits. And when energetic protesting of Council actions (and inaction) became too embarrassing in 2016-17, the Council literally locked its constituents out of the Council building permanently, turning 100 Maryland Avenue into a secure fortress. A Council of the People, a Council not suffering from paranoia and megalomania, doesn't have to lock out the public.
If locking the People out wasn't enough, the Council took another unprecedented step - it refused to engage in the all-American, democratic process of debating its political opponents in the last election. Civic associations were successfully pressured by the Montgomery County cartel to cancel all of their general election debates in 2018. Washington Post reporters Jennifer Barrios and Robert McCartney were fully aware of this, but chose not to cover it. In fact, they mysteriously never wrote a single sentence about the general election Council races in 2018.
Democracy dies in darkness, indeed.
It is once again time for the citizens to shine a light into that corrupt darkness, by voting FOR Question D to create nine compact districts, and AGAINST Question C.
The Council is again attempting to sabotage an election, this time by confusion. Just remember this handy guide to defeat them: "D" stands for democracy. "C" stands for corruption. Vote FOR Democracy and AGAINST Corruption, by voting FOR D and AGAINST C.
Photo via National Archives
3 comments:
Good advice Robert, nice work.
Excellent story, I recommend that everyone should pass this on to their friends.
Where to start? I'm not particularly fond of the current council, but I think (with the possible exception of the influence of campaign contributions), they were elected fairly. In a democracy, it should not be surprising that one party dominates the Council when 80% of the county's affiliated voters are affiliated with that party. In a democracy the best way to improve your party's representation is to put up stronger candidates who are more in touch with their constituents views, not be re-engineering the election system with hopes that you can gerrymander it in a way that benefits your party. Getting rid of at large council members would not make the Council more democratic, but it would make its members more parochial and less able to deal with big issues and what's best for the county as a whole. Saying that a petition developed by a handful of non-elected individuals is somehow more democratic than one that was developed by elected individuals through a democratic process is hard to understand. The nine districts effort is being backed largely by Republicans whose Party is comprised of 23% of the county's affiliated voters and represents about 17% of all registered voters. The hope is that by cutting up the county into small enough pieces and somehow gerrymandering how those cut-up pieces would be sliced, they might find a way to get someone they like elected in one of those small pieces of real estate. It's not clear that it would actually work out that way, but it's possible. However, it is clear that it would do away with all Council members that represent all of the county's voters and who should therefore be guided by more than just local, parochial issues. I think a mix of at-large and district-elected council members provides a good mix, though I would be open to the idea of adding a couple of additional district-elected reps given the population growth that has taken place in the county. Care would need to be taken in dividing up the county into new districts to ensure that this was done in a way that did not favor either party.
Post a Comment