I was wondering as I was reading if you'd introduce the rank choice in here. Perhaps the answers lay in some at large but with diminished influence behind the districts. Priority to districts, such that the at large is 25% range of the total. I think there is perhaps a case to be made for city wide representation in order to provide a wider perspective, but also to not allow it to overshadow the more particular representation that is important. From an outside perspective having the interests of the whole seems important but not at the dismissal of the particular unique interests.
agreed that it is potentially too much...but if the seats were not five but 2 out of 10 and more districts that would resolve some of that. I think you are on track with the "at large" issue in representation and that would presumably make RCV more viable
I was wondering as I was reading if you'd introduce the rank choice in here. Perhaps the answers lay in some at large but with diminished influence behind the districts. Priority to districts, such that the at large is 25% range of the total. I think there is perhaps a case to be made for city wide representation in order to provide a wider perspective, but also to not allow it to overshadow the more particular representation that is important. From an outside perspective having the interests of the whole seems important but not at the dismissal of the particular unique interests.
RCV works well in mayoral elections and district seats. A pick-five at-large race would be a mess with RCV.
agreed that it is potentially too much...but if the seats were not five but 2 out of 10 and more districts that would resolve some of that. I think you are on track with the "at large" issue in representation and that would presumably make RCV more viable