Links
Breakfast links: Some good changes
Will Four26 prompt reforms?: Keith Ivey suggests ending the at-large interim appointments, instituting IRV, and having more flexibility in election dates. Martin Austermuhle adds reforming the petition signature challenge process and fixing campaign finance loopholes. (Four26)
IRV explained, British style: A British video explains how Alternative Vote, called Instant Runoff Voting in the US, is not that complicated and is really like the way a group of "mates" might decide what "pub" to go to. An upcoming referendum could implement IRV for the UK parliament. (Gavin)
Higher ridership shrinks gap: Higher-than-expected ridership has buoyed WMATA's finances some, shrinking the $72.5 million budget gap by approximately $6 million. Service cuts will still be on the table to close the remaining gap. (Examiner)
Swain's ouster political payback: Mayor Gray had made a promise to the taxicab industry who heavily supported his campaign to fire Commissioner Leon Swain. Gray may reappoint a Commissioner from Marion Barry's fourth mayoral term. (Post)
Barry wants Near SE, Near SE doesn't want Barry: Marion Barry has made clear he wants the ballpark district added to Ward 8 in the upcoming redistricting. That's very unpopular with residents of the area, who are organizing to oppose the idea. (JDland)
Residents oppose development in Bluemont: The civic association in Bluemont, west of Ballston, commissioned a proposal to create a walkable village center in place of some strip malls and warehouses. It's not a real proposal yet, but some residents at a meeting already are objecting to potential development. (ARLnow)
Workers fired after accident: Two Metro workers were fired after leaving an escalator hatch open overnight at the Pentagon station. The hatch remained open after the station opened and a woman fell in. (Examiner)
Important wedding today: We don't mean the British monarchy. Coalition for Smarter Growth policy director Cheryl Cort and her partner are getting married. Mazel tov! And thanks, DC Council (except Yvette Alexander, Marion Barry and possibly Vincent Orange)!
And...: PBS Newshour profiled DC's second-class status in Congress, hopefully raising awareness of DC's struggle for representation. ... Since the incentive for buildings to create street-fronting arcades was removed, at least one was enclosed. (City Paper) ... 30 bridges, or 12% of those in DC, are structurally deficient. (TBD)
Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.
Comments
Understanding can help cyclists, drivers better share the road
- Understanding can help cyclists, drivers better share the road
- Anti-transit ideology endangers Silver Line
- Give up your seat on the bus or train to those in need
- Last of K Street's great mansions is threatened
- McDonnell's roadblocks threaten Silver Line's phase 2
- Metro tests secure parking with new "bike and ride"
- Support a growing city and join Pro-DC
Fri May 18
(All day) Bike to Work Day
Sun May 20
10:00 am What Would Jane Jacobs Do?
Mon May 21
Wed May 23
12:00 pm Live chat with Matt Yglesias
Wed May 30
10:00 am Bike-ped safety enforcement hearing








I wouldn't count on it. Those who watch PBS are already progressive enough to know about our battle. If Fox News (miraculously) did a bit on how 600,000 Americans are upset about how their taxes are being spent by the Fed, I could believe some change.
by thedofc on Apr 29, 2011 9:13 am
My guess is that this will close even more if gas prices remain high. That being said this is not the time to cut services. We need to find ways to keep those new customers, not drive them away.
by Matt R on Apr 29, 2011 9:27 am
by Ben Ross on Apr 29, 2011 9:29 am
Agree with Matt R that service cuts (especially extremely long weekend waits) would be counterproductive.
by DCster on Apr 29, 2011 9:43 am
by Bob on Apr 29, 2011 9:45 am
So I will strenuously object to the elimination of any incentives to the building of street-front arcades. Where will I go to waste my quarters? Back alley arcades? Puh-lease!
* Apologies to Pete Townsend.
by Who on Apr 29, 2011 9:50 am
by ksu499 on Apr 29, 2011 9:57 am
by jj on Apr 29, 2011 10:14 am
http://www.dcboee.org/election_info/election_results/election_result_new/results_final.asp?userprev=1&electionid=1&result_type=3
So he's pretty safe. The ward has about 20,000 people, so maybe a quarter voted, and there are only 2,794 people in Near Southeast.
by David Alpert on Apr 29, 2011 10:22 am
by cminus on Apr 29, 2011 10:23 am
Funny thing is that I voted for Charles Wilson and had no idea who he was or what platform he ran on.
Those pesky irresponsible voters I tell you! Me included.
by HogWash on Apr 29, 2011 10:58 am
by jj on Apr 29, 2011 11:03 am
Fort Collins Voters just rejected IRV 61% to 39% for plurality elections.
Here's a video about AV that describes the problems, and another form California where it has been used:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmP81NW9_O0
and California:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-wEzXMV3A
by Tourist on Apr 29, 2011 11:19 am
Two words: term limits. Suppose we removed Barry from the equation; how much opposition would this idea generate? With new leadership, Anacostia could continue the resurgence now seen south of Capitol Hill. As long as DC continues to re-elect Mayors/Commissioners/Representatives-For-Life, DC will lack new ideas and new blood to achieve its true potential.
by smoke_jaguar4 on Apr 29, 2011 1:35 pm
Oh, boy. Not this again.
Great, so, to give an example, someone like Wells would be term-limited out of office, and some demagogue who "walks and talks like us" would take his place. The idea that "politician churn" is manifestly preferable to the status quo is highly suspect.
Excellent idea.
by oboe on Apr 29, 2011 1:45 pm
The assumption used in the second scenario presented in that first video seems highly suspect. It seems incredibly unlikely for a candidate in last place to swap places with the frontrunner (without affecting the choices in between).
Similarly, you'd never see a sequence like 1-Green 2-Republican 3-Democrat, as was presented in that video. In a more realistic simulation, a moderate 3rd party might win out over the mainstream party.
Also, that simulation used a bastardized version of the IRV system. Would anybody seriously propose pooling results by ward before performing the runoff? That seems to defeat part of the purpose of IRV.
Also, both of those ads have all the hallmarks of a campaign ad. Someone's definitely got an axe to grind.
by andrew on Apr 29, 2011 4:10 pm
Tens of thousands of elections have gone down with the old system where the winner didn't win the majority, yet we throw around the aphorism of "majority rules". Does that mean those elections are failures because they didn't live up to the definition of majority?
For every freak election under IRV there are hundreds of elections like the one we just had here where the winner was probably opposed by the majority of voters. Scare tactics and asinine semantic debates can't change that.
by TM on Apr 29, 2011 4:31 pm
by mc on Apr 29, 2011 5:00 pm
by greent on Apr 30, 2011 12:01 pm
Add a Comment