At 08:17 AM 3/22/01 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
In the city I presently live in, Oshkosh, WI, we have a system of city government in which we have no real representation whatsoever. The city council is elected at large -- meaning we have no ward alderman, and, in
fact,
most of the time all the council members are from the newer burbs where the more affluent live. The city council then elects the mayor. This is a city of just over 50K. This is supposed to be "progressive". I can't wait until the states and the fed go this route. Seems to me to be totally unconstitutional -- taxation w/o representation to the core -- but what do I know.
That's a quantization issue ---you are recognizing a 'ward' but the 'at large' election means the city is the unit of quantization. If you got 'ward' voting someone could complain that smaller units were fairer, etc. In some places whether or not you feel 'represented' might include whether your religion (sex, albedo, etc.) was 'represented' by either a representative who looked like you or who held a formal position given to those of your type. (cf the protestants' representation in various (catholic) north ireland legal bodies) Another interesting facet of 'representation' is how obligated your 'representatives' are to act as their electors wish, and penalties they face for violating constitutions. And whether subsets are 'allowed' to leave and form their own representative bodies (cf LA vs. the Valley, FRY, US civil war) .......