I’m extremely concerned about Portland & Mult.Co’s near future. The opaque & nepotist Charter Commissioner antics are serious, need transparent, objective dissection.
Wonderful recap of the disaster that is soon to be sprung on voters in Portland. Now we just have to wait to see if the public at large is as ignorant as the people in Portland. I bet we could sell those Portlanders a bridge if we put the right spin on it. 🤣
For the record, committees of the private City Club of Portland essentially created the blueprint for Portland's revised charter behind closed doors and without public notice or an opportunity for public comment in 2019 and 2020. What the City Club says on its website about the committees' work can be found here: https://www.pdxcityclub.org/new-government/ It is required reading.
The committees' findings and recommendations were published in in two reports. The reports' recommendations appear below. However, the recommendations are by no means a substitute for scanning the reports in their entirety and perusing sections that may be of particular interest such as discussions about various voting methods and a proposed public education campaign.
The reports are:
"New Government for Today’s Portland: Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System."
City Club of Portland Bulletin, Vol. 101, No. 2, February 10, 2019.
Executive authority should be centralized in the office of mayor, but delegated in large part to a city manager.
Portland should have a professional city manager selected by the mayor, subject to council approval. The city manager must be a qualified professional with relevant training and experience.
The mayor should serve as the permanent chairperson of the city council and cast tie-breaking votes where applicable, although this is a moot point as long as the total number of city council members (“regular” members plus the mayor) is an odd number.
Portland should stop electing city council members in at-large elections, opting instead for district-based elections, preferably with multiple commissioners per district.
Portland should further explore alternative systems of voting, using an appropriate equity lens to decide which system is most likely to produce the best results for Portland. While it was beyond the mandate of this committee to develop a definitive recommendation as to voting system, it is clear from our research that traditional “first-past-the-goalpost” voting is not the best system in terms of equity.
The size of the Portland city council should be increased to at least eight commissioners, plus the mayor.
The committee also identified opportunities for further research:
Alternate voting methods. As stated in the Executive Summary and body of this report, we strongly believe that Portland should move away from its current at-large, first-past-the-goalpost system of voting because that system has been shown (in theory, in practice, and in the courts) to systematically underrepresent many communities. In Portland’s case, those systematically underrepresented communities include everyone who does not live in SW Portland (but particularly those living east of 82th Avenue), people of color, women, ethnic minorities, young people, renters, and others. We therefore strongly recommend that Portland change its method of voting—whether or not Portlanders ultimately follow our recommendation to scrap the commission form of government. (We are aware that on eight separate occasions, Portland voters have rejected ballot measures to replace the commission form of government.) Your research committee therefore recommends that the City Club of Portland should immediately undertake additional research on voting reforms that could move Portland toward a more equitable government, including:
Instituting a system of preferential voting. Whether instant run-off, cumulative, or ranked-choice, Portland should institute some system of preferential voting to elect our city leaders, including the mayor, in one election in the fall, when voters are most engaged. Portland has several options for election reform, each with pros and cons that are worthy of further study. However, all of the options can encourage engagement and success for a wider range of candidates than our current first-past-the-post, single-seat primary and general elections.
Expanding the City Council by at least two commissioners. As explained above, a larger council offers more chance to represent diverse viewpoints and backgrounds. The bureau assignments would be spread more thinly, and each commissioner might have fewer staff, but they might also have more time to focus on constituent services and their policy and legislative functions.
Electing a multimember slate of commissioners in one election. If there remain only four commissioners, all four could be elected in one election year, with the mayor elected the alternate election year. With some sort of preferential voting, the top four finishers would win the seats. (With their name recognition and other advantages, incumbents would be likely to continue to win reelection, so a clean sweep and disruption that that might cause is unlikely.) Alternately, with a larger council, a slate of three commissioners could be elected each election year, again through some form of preferential voting.
Office of Neighborhood Involvement / Office of Community and Civic Life. In unsolicited comments, our witnesses heaped enormous unprompted criticism on ONI, to a degree suggesting it would be useful to examine whether the office is delivering appreciable value to Portland residents. While ONI has recently undergone significant changes, including changing its name to the Office of Community and Civic Life, the nature of the criticisms were more fundamental and pointed to systemic problems of equity related to the fact that most neighborhood associations (which absorb the lion’s share of ONI funding) are composed of primarily white, affluent home owners.
District mapping. Although the committee has recommended switching from at-large to district-based voting, significant work will be needed to define the boundaries of potential districts. In general, we endorse the creation of equitable, compact electoral districts, compliant with the Voting Rights Act.
The City Club Committee made the following recommendations:
1. Significant and expansive community out-reach efforts must be undertaken to ensure that the voices of historically marginalized communities are elevated in the final comprehensive package of reforms. Broad and thorough engagement is needed to understand the changes that would best meet the needs of those historically marginalized or shut out of the political process. Fie do not and cannot speak for all the communities of interest who would be impacted by reforms. This kind of civic engagement requires focused resources, leadership and commitment. We call on the City of Portland, philanthropic institutions, and supporters of civic engagement to prioritize this work in the coming years, and specifically during the 2021 Charter Review Commission Process.
2. Portland must adopt a voting method that eliminates the need for a primary. Far fewer Portlanders vote in may primaries than in the November general election, yet City Council elections can be settled in may if a candidate wins a majority of ballots cast. Portland would benefit from an alternative voting method that eliminates the need for a primary. To implement this recommendation, the committee sees advantages to both ranked-choice voting and cumulative or limited voting.
3. Portland must adopt multi-member districts. The committee sees any shift toward districts as superior to Portland’s current at-large system, as it would result in more equitable elections. A strong majority of the committee prefers multi-member districts over single-member districts since they eliminate winner-take-all outcomes and allow multiple constituencies within a geographic area to elect their preferred representatives. A hybrid system of districts and at-large seats would be an improvement but only a partial solution.
A third City Club of Portland document relating to the city charter reform is no longer publicly available despite the fact that it remains listed on the City Club's website. It is the "New Government for Today's Portland One Pager" dated 2020. Clicking on the link produces an "Access Denied" message.
Testing in cities, then states & then they will try to do it for the federal elections. When they show you it is being done in other states successfully, they are always blue states.
I find the progressive movement is like a slow disease taking over the brain. A tumor with tentacles interwoven into the gray matter squeezing off blood flow and making the ability to think logically, independently, and coherently impossible. To Portland free thinkers I hope you can rally those not effected by the rot, or those willing to say enough is enough ( example, the Walk Away campaign )....best of luck taking back the city!
In the 90’s, when I was working as a reporter at a newspaper in Southern California, I had an argument with someone, and he called me a “libtard.” What a ridiculous way to try and make a point. Combine liberal with retard?
Now, living in Portland, I wonder if there isn’t something about progressive politics that makes people stupid. It’s like a cult. Once you join, you don’t have to think anymore. Embrace "Portland values" or "progressive values," and just go along with the crowd.
When I look at the political landscape in Oregon and more importantly Portland, I feel like the media and the politicians have an incestuous relationship.
The push is always for the extreme left ideology and if you don’t fit that mold, they will try to destroy and discredit you so you can’t win an election. I see it happening now with Rene Gonzales because the extremists are afraid he might be elected mayor.
With JVP at an 11% approval rating, I’m a little optimistic that maybe we will get a few not the status quo people elected.
I’m not sure how soon we will know with our wonderful RCV.
Richard, you have performed a real public service here — and you’ve done it on your own time and your own dime.
One institution, which routinely escapes blame in all the coverage of what has gone wrong in Oregon and Portland, is the news media. The Oregonian, Willamette Week and OPB still can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that Portland’s famous “progressive values” have painted the city into a corner. Our local media let Antifa and their various auxiliaries and cheerleaders rule the streets in 2020. Now drug addicts are allowed to do the same. It’s the compassionate way.
Shame on Mark Zusman’s Willamette Week for comparing Ranked Choice Voting to the lottery. Does this mean RCV is the equivalent of a stupidity tax?
I am glad I only shop in Portland, don't live or vote there.
RCV is a deliberate effort to make voting even more inscrutable. I have never failed to exercise the franchise in the 50 years I have been eligible, but I am very much the exception. Consider that roughly 13% of eligible adult age voters decide most elections (half aren't registered and half of those don't vote). The only explanation is that RCV is intended to abolish functional democracy and allow marginal candidates like Candace Avalos to get past fourth place!
As I demonstrated in my comment, the City Club of Portland is likely the invisible hand behind the charter reform. One of the City Club committees who shaped the new charter gave the following rationale for abandoning what they call the "first past the post" method of voting and we call the only proper way to vote. The didn't admit to the first of your suggested explanations but they sure leaned very heavily into the second:
"As stated in the Executive Summary and body of this report, we strongly believe that Portland should move away from its current at-large, first-past-the-goalpost system of voting because that system has been shown (in theory, in practice, and in the courts) to systematically underrepresent many communities. In Portland’s case, those systematically underrepresented communities include everyone who does not live in SW Portland (but particularly those living east of 82th Avenue), people of color, women, ethnic minorities, young people, renters, and others."
Richard you said this about PDX Real voting recommendations ”…although how Dan Ryan, Terrence Hayes, and Loretta Smith made it through their fine-tooth comb remains puzzling and unanswered”. They are some of the better options…unfortunately others running against them are MUCH worse. Are you in district 1 or 3? Who are you going to rank?
Last night I went to a candidates’ forum at Christ Memorial Church in North Portland. Four City Council candidates were there. The moderator kept using the word “appointed” instead of “elected.” Now reading your comment I realize he might not have misspoke. Will the winners truly be elected?
You have to ask yourself: where did these voting systems come from? (Progressives with more money than sense and, of course, Soros); and how does the machine profit from bamboozled voters? (That one answers itself.)
I’m extremely concerned about Portland & Mult.Co’s near future. The opaque & nepotist Charter Commissioner antics are serious, need transparent, objective dissection.
Be sure to check out Will Lathrop for Oregon Attorney General. A moderate who is also tough on crime
https://willlathrop.com/
Wonderful recap of the disaster that is soon to be sprung on voters in Portland. Now we just have to wait to see if the public at large is as ignorant as the people in Portland. I bet we could sell those Portlanders a bridge if we put the right spin on it. 🤣
For the record, committees of the private City Club of Portland essentially created the blueprint for Portland's revised charter behind closed doors and without public notice or an opportunity for public comment in 2019 and 2020. What the City Club says on its website about the committees' work can be found here: https://www.pdxcityclub.org/new-government/ It is required reading.
The committees' findings and recommendations were published in in two reports. The reports' recommendations appear below. However, the recommendations are by no means a substitute for scanning the reports in their entirety and perusing sections that may be of particular interest such as discussions about various voting methods and a proposed public education campaign.
The reports are:
"New Government for Today’s Portland: Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System."
City Club of Portland Bulletin, Vol. 101, No. 2, February 10, 2019.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K3j7349K8wp24eGmb5odNzDMrSM-x9cs/view
or
https://www.pdxcityclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CCPDX_Rethinking-the-Commission-System-2019.pdf
The City Club committee's recommendations were:
Executive authority should be centralized in the office of mayor, but delegated in large part to a city manager.
Portland should have a professional city manager selected by the mayor, subject to council approval. The city manager must be a qualified professional with relevant training and experience.
The mayor should serve as the permanent chairperson of the city council and cast tie-breaking votes where applicable, although this is a moot point as long as the total number of city council members (“regular” members plus the mayor) is an odd number.
Portland should stop electing city council members in at-large elections, opting instead for district-based elections, preferably with multiple commissioners per district.
Portland should further explore alternative systems of voting, using an appropriate equity lens to decide which system is most likely to produce the best results for Portland. While it was beyond the mandate of this committee to develop a definitive recommendation as to voting system, it is clear from our research that traditional “first-past-the-goalpost” voting is not the best system in terms of equity.
The size of the Portland city council should be increased to at least eight commissioners, plus the mayor.
The committee also identified opportunities for further research:
Alternate voting methods. As stated in the Executive Summary and body of this report, we strongly believe that Portland should move away from its current at-large, first-past-the-goalpost system of voting because that system has been shown (in theory, in practice, and in the courts) to systematically underrepresent many communities. In Portland’s case, those systematically underrepresented communities include everyone who does not live in SW Portland (but particularly those living east of 82th Avenue), people of color, women, ethnic minorities, young people, renters, and others. We therefore strongly recommend that Portland change its method of voting—whether or not Portlanders ultimately follow our recommendation to scrap the commission form of government. (We are aware that on eight separate occasions, Portland voters have rejected ballot measures to replace the commission form of government.) Your research committee therefore recommends that the City Club of Portland should immediately undertake additional research on voting reforms that could move Portland toward a more equitable government, including:
Instituting a system of preferential voting. Whether instant run-off, cumulative, or ranked-choice, Portland should institute some system of preferential voting to elect our city leaders, including the mayor, in one election in the fall, when voters are most engaged. Portland has several options for election reform, each with pros and cons that are worthy of further study. However, all of the options can encourage engagement and success for a wider range of candidates than our current first-past-the-post, single-seat primary and general elections.
Expanding the City Council by at least two commissioners. As explained above, a larger council offers more chance to represent diverse viewpoints and backgrounds. The bureau assignments would be spread more thinly, and each commissioner might have fewer staff, but they might also have more time to focus on constituent services and their policy and legislative functions.
Electing a multimember slate of commissioners in one election. If there remain only four commissioners, all four could be elected in one election year, with the mayor elected the alternate election year. With some sort of preferential voting, the top four finishers would win the seats. (With their name recognition and other advantages, incumbents would be likely to continue to win reelection, so a clean sweep and disruption that that might cause is unlikely.) Alternately, with a larger council, a slate of three commissioners could be elected each election year, again through some form of preferential voting.
Office of Neighborhood Involvement / Office of Community and Civic Life. In unsolicited comments, our witnesses heaped enormous unprompted criticism on ONI, to a degree suggesting it would be useful to examine whether the office is delivering appreciable value to Portland residents. While ONI has recently undergone significant changes, including changing its name to the Office of Community and Civic Life, the nature of the criticisms were more fundamental and pointed to systemic problems of equity related to the fact that most neighborhood associations (which absorb the lion’s share of ONI funding) are composed of primarily white, affluent home owners.
District mapping. Although the committee has recommended switching from at-large to district-based voting, significant work will be needed to define the boundaries of potential districts. In general, we endorse the creation of equitable, compact electoral districts, compliant with the Voting Rights Act.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"New Government for Today's Portland. II Rethinking How We Vote."
City Club of Portland August 7, 2020
https://www.pdxcityclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CCoP-Rethinking-How-We-Vote.pdf
The City Club Committee made the following recommendations:
1. Significant and expansive community out-reach efforts must be undertaken to ensure that the voices of historically marginalized communities are elevated in the final comprehensive package of reforms. Broad and thorough engagement is needed to understand the changes that would best meet the needs of those historically marginalized or shut out of the political process. Fie do not and cannot speak for all the communities of interest who would be impacted by reforms. This kind of civic engagement requires focused resources, leadership and commitment. We call on the City of Portland, philanthropic institutions, and supporters of civic engagement to prioritize this work in the coming years, and specifically during the 2021 Charter Review Commission Process.
2. Portland must adopt a voting method that eliminates the need for a primary. Far fewer Portlanders vote in may primaries than in the November general election, yet City Council elections can be settled in may if a candidate wins a majority of ballots cast. Portland would benefit from an alternative voting method that eliminates the need for a primary. To implement this recommendation, the committee sees advantages to both ranked-choice voting and cumulative or limited voting.
3. Portland must adopt multi-member districts. The committee sees any shift toward districts as superior to Portland’s current at-large system, as it would result in more equitable elections. A strong majority of the committee prefers multi-member districts over single-member districts since they eliminate winner-take-all outcomes and allow multiple constituencies within a geographic area to elect their preferred representatives. A hybrid system of districts and at-large seats would be an improvement but only a partial solution.
A third City Club of Portland document relating to the city charter reform is no longer publicly available despite the fact that it remains listed on the City Club's website. It is the "New Government for Today's Portland One Pager" dated 2020. Clicking on the link produces an "Access Denied" message.
Testing in cities, then states & then they will try to do it for the federal elections. When they show you it is being done in other states successfully, they are always blue states.
I find the progressive movement is like a slow disease taking over the brain. A tumor with tentacles interwoven into the gray matter squeezing off blood flow and making the ability to think logically, independently, and coherently impossible. To Portland free thinkers I hope you can rally those not effected by the rot, or those willing to say enough is enough ( example, the Walk Away campaign )....best of luck taking back the city!
OMG! You have definitely hit the nail on the head!! 😉 Whap! 🔨
In the 90’s, when I was working as a reporter at a newspaper in Southern California, I had an argument with someone, and he called me a “libtard.” What a ridiculous way to try and make a point. Combine liberal with retard?
Now, living in Portland, I wonder if there isn’t something about progressive politics that makes people stupid. It’s like a cult. Once you join, you don’t have to think anymore. Embrace "Portland values" or "progressive values," and just go along with the crowd.
When I look at the political landscape in Oregon and more importantly Portland, I feel like the media and the politicians have an incestuous relationship.
The push is always for the extreme left ideology and if you don’t fit that mold, they will try to destroy and discredit you so you can’t win an election. I see it happening now with Rene Gonzales because the extremists are afraid he might be elected mayor.
With JVP at an 11% approval rating, I’m a little optimistic that maybe we will get a few not the status quo people elected.
I’m not sure how soon we will know with our wonderful RCV.
Richard, you have performed a real public service here — and you’ve done it on your own time and your own dime.
One institution, which routinely escapes blame in all the coverage of what has gone wrong in Oregon and Portland, is the news media. The Oregonian, Willamette Week and OPB still can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that Portland’s famous “progressive values” have painted the city into a corner. Our local media let Antifa and their various auxiliaries and cheerleaders rule the streets in 2020. Now drug addicts are allowed to do the same. It’s the compassionate way.
Shame on Mark Zusman’s Willamette Week for comparing Ranked Choice Voting to the lottery. Does this mean RCV is the equivalent of a stupidity tax?
OPB is by far the biggest offender when it comes to slanted reporting, though The Oregonian has had its moments, too.
I am glad I only shop in Portland, don't live or vote there.
RCV is a deliberate effort to make voting even more inscrutable. I have never failed to exercise the franchise in the 50 years I have been eligible, but I am very much the exception. Consider that roughly 13% of eligible adult age voters decide most elections (half aren't registered and half of those don't vote). The only explanation is that RCV is intended to abolish functional democracy and allow marginal candidates like Candace Avalos to get past fourth place!
As I demonstrated in my comment, the City Club of Portland is likely the invisible hand behind the charter reform. One of the City Club committees who shaped the new charter gave the following rationale for abandoning what they call the "first past the post" method of voting and we call the only proper way to vote. The didn't admit to the first of your suggested explanations but they sure leaned very heavily into the second:
"As stated in the Executive Summary and body of this report, we strongly believe that Portland should move away from its current at-large, first-past-the-goalpost system of voting because that system has been shown (in theory, in practice, and in the courts) to systematically underrepresent many communities. In Portland’s case, those systematically underrepresented communities include everyone who does not live in SW Portland (but particularly those living east of 82th Avenue), people of color, women, ethnic minorities, young people, renters, and others."
Unfortunately it’s most likely coming to all Oregon statewide elections. :(. I’m
of course voting no on Measure 117 but it “sounds progressive ” so Portland voters will most likely get it passed.
Richard you said this about PDX Real voting recommendations ”…although how Dan Ryan, Terrence Hayes, and Loretta Smith made it through their fine-tooth comb remains puzzling and unanswered”. They are some of the better options…unfortunately others running against them are MUCH worse. Are you in district 1 or 3? Who are you going to rank?
I am pondering not ranking anyone...but that's a story for another day.
Please vote.
And now we have opposition “Don’t Rank” websites, as in dontrankrene.org. You’ve got to be a threat to get one of those.
Yep and the anti-Gonzalez campaign is funded with out of state money.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DBWe6PevBM2/?igsh=bGRrZWh1d3g3YmF6
Ranked choice for Portland is so wrong. It is designed to install people not vote for them.
Last night I went to a candidates’ forum at Christ Memorial Church in North Portland. Four City Council candidates were there. The moderator kept using the word “appointed” instead of “elected.” Now reading your comment I realize he might not have misspoke. Will the winners truly be elected?
You have to ask yourself: where did these voting systems come from? (Progressives with more money than sense and, of course, Soros); and how does the machine profit from bamboozled voters? (That one answers itself.)