Laserfiche WebLink
minutes 01-15-00Page 21 of 59 <br />RAY: Sue. <br />IRVINE: Does anybody know what’s generally done? Because you could either double or you could go the number of vacant <br />seats plus one. If we went for, like, six, might we still have people elected with a very small plurality of the vote? That’s what <br />I’m wondering. If everybody got almost the same number of votes, the three elected wouldn’t have a great deal of support <br />throughout the island. You know what I mean? <br />RAY: Yes, I don’t have any gut sense of the - <br />IRVINE: That’s what I was wondering. Is there any way - <br />YUEN: I don’t think there’s a standard way of doing this. There’s no right way and there’s no wrong way, and the <br />implications, again, are more political than legal, but the implications are the more you carry to the General, then the more <br />the General counts rather than the Primary. If you only carry one over, then, of course, there’s a bigger scramble than the <br />Primary to get, because the candidate may figure, well, I’ll be in the top six and I’ll spend my money in the General. So, as I <br />say, there’s no right way, there’s no wrong way. Now, what is the clearest way to do it. You’re right, the more people you <br />carry into the General, then the fewer votes you can win with. On the other hand, these are people that are winning. This is <br />your chance to vote, and they’re ahead and - <br />IRVINE: Yes. <br />WEST: Since my concern was this non-partisan and the 6-3 and nine whatever Council members make-up, and my concern, <br />once again, is that you’re putting in one - correct me if I’m wrong here - You’re putting into one item on the ballot, that <br />would talk about non-partisan and at the same time, talk about 6 members and 3 at-large. Is that right? <br />YUEN: No. <br />WEST: It would be separate? <br />YUEN: Those are easy to separate. <br />WEST: Okay. <br />YUEN: And the way it would be done is that the language concerning the at-large members, that would be put into the non- <br />partisan section, would simply be deleted if the 6-3 did not pass. It just would not roll over into the Charter. People would <br />pass - <br />WEST: Either people would want non-partisan or not, yes or no. <br />YUEN: Yes. <br />WEST: And then they want 6-3 or not. <br />YUEN: Yes or no. Yes. <br />WEST: Okay. Then the other issue about how they’re elected and the 50% plus one, would that even be on as a voter item? <br />YUEN: No, that’s all in the non-partisan section. How many get carried on into the General is all in a separate question, <br />totally dealing with the non-partisan elections. <br />WEST: Okay, I’ve got you. Simple, plain language, right? <br />YUEN: And, then the 6-3 is on a separate item. So, if you stayed with partisan elections, the voters could pass a 6-3 and then <br />they’ll just have Primary and General. But if they passed a non-partisan Amendment, and they pass a 6-3 at the same time, <br />then they’ll know what to do. <br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 01-15-00.html7/1/2011 <br /> <br />