MIN CHC 2000-01-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RAY: Yes, I don't have any gut sense of the - IRVINE: That's what I was wondering. Is there any way - 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 implications, again, are more political than legal, but the implications are the more you carry to the General, then the more the General counts rather than the Primary. If you only carry one over, then, of course, there's a bigger scramble than the 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 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 carry into the General, then the fewer votes you can win with. On the other hand, these are people that are winning. This is your chance to vote, and they're ahead and - IRVINE: Yes. WEST: Since my concern was this non-partisan and the 6-3 and nine whatever Council members make-up, and my concern, 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 would talk about non-partisan and at the same time, talk about 6 members and 3 at -large. Is that right? YUEN: No. WEST: It would be separate? YUEN: Those are easy to separate. WEST: Okay. YUEN: And the way it would be done is that the language concerning the at -large members, that would be put into the non-partisan section, would simply be deleted if the 6-3 did not pass. It just would not roll over into the Charter. People would pass - WEST: Either people would want non-partisan or not, yes or no. YUEN: Yes. WEST: And then they want 6-3 or not. YUEN: Yes or no. Yes. WEST: Okay. Then the other issue about how they're elected and the 50% 32