Commentary : A Fairer Council Election System

Even though the discussion of how San Diego’s City Council should be chosen has been a recurring one that has continually been decided in favor of the existing system, it is time to call for another review and to suggest a new alternative.

One reason for the continuing clash over the council election system is that the two alternatives that are usually debated occupy opposite ends of the spectrum and thus polarize opinion. I suggest a compromise that strikes a middle ground between the at-large way we now elect council members and a district election scheme.

In San Diego, City Council members are chosen in a modification of what is popularly known as the at-large system, meaning council members are selected by voters citywide. The San Diego variation calls for the nomination of two candidates from each of eight districts in a primary vote prior to the citywide runoff election. The “nomination by district then election at-large” mechanism is considered by many as a compromise between the district system (in which each council member would be chosen only by the voters living in one district) and the at-large scheme.

But a compromise should produce a situation that balances results, or at least opportunity, equally between two opposing views. The San Diego election system has not done this. The only positive result it offers for proponents of district elections is that it guarantees the scattering of council members throughout the city, as they must reside in the council districts they represent.

The plan does not assure the voters of a district that they will be able to select their own council representative. One need only recall the 1983 council elections when the clear choices of Districts 3 and 8 were defeated in the citywide election. Three current council members have lost primaries in their districts but won citywide. In essence, the San Diego scheme is a thinly disguised at-large system.

Additionally, the existing election system appears not to be helpful in getting minority candidates elected. As various ethnic and racial populations have grown in San Diego, the at-large system has not served to produce anything approaching consistent minority victories. Remember, the two minority members currently on the council were initially appointed and ran for office as incumbents, a great advantage when running citywide.

District systems, on the other hand, provide an advantage for minority as well as neighborhood or community representatives, and produce a better balance on the City Council.

In San Diego, the district-versus-at-large battle has been fought for too long, produced too much acrimony, polarized too many people, and it is not my purpose to suggest its resurrection. Rather, let me propose a true compromise, a plan that will not completely satisfy either side politically, but one that has the capability of providing a representative system for electing members of the City Council.

It is termed a mixed electoral system, and is simply a scheme in which some council members are elected at-large and others are elected from single-member districts. According to a recent article by Susan A. MacManus in the National Civic Review, mixed systems are becoming popular in larger cities, cities with growing minority populations and cities changing election systems (especially from at-large schemes). MacManus points out that, among the advantages of a mixed system is that it establishes a structure that will “promote representation of neighborhood areas and citywide concerns, operating much like a bicameral legislative body encouraging coalition building.” It “encourages broader discussion of a wider range of policy issues,” she says.

The determination as to the split between the number of council members elected at-large and the number from districts offers the opportunity for variations, compromises and public debate.

Alternatives would include: a three to five mixed plan (three elected at-large and five by single-member district); a four to four division, or the possibility of maintaining the eight current council members, electing them by district and expanding the council by some number of at-large elected members.

Any one of the many combinations would produce different patterns of representation and, more than likely, different policy decisions.

The battle over the election system in San Diego is real, and the outcome has a direct impact on all who live here. It seems valid, therefore, to propose a system that is more balanced and neutral than the current system.

What could be more appropriate than to have a charter amendment proposing a more representative election system to coincide with and represent San Diego’s contribution to the celebration of our nation’s constitutional bicentennial?