Map 8A Won’t Represent You

map8a-council2016

Well voters have spoken and District Map 8A will be how Fullerton is divided for the next two coming elections. Do you know how it’ll play out?

No. You don’t. You don’t because neither does the city and they don’t because nobody thought to figure it out first. Not even the people on Council when the lawsuits on this issue were settled.

Do you know what districts will be up for a vote in 2018? Nope. That hasn’t been decided yet.

The assumption is that it’ll be districts 2 & 5 because 2 is where Chaffee resides that he’s up for re-election in 2018 with nobody else living in his district and 5 because nobody on Council is a current district 5 resident. This is incumbency, and establishment, protectionist nonsense.

But Sebourn is up for election in 2018 as well so why not put district 3 up for a vote? Oh because that’s where Silva lives and therefore they’d have somebody in their district who is theoretically accountable to them. Therefore if Sebourn wants to stay on Council he’d have to move. Why not make Chaffee move instead? He keeps talking about how great Brea is so maybe it’ll prompt him to finally leave.

Sebourn would have to move, not Chaffee, because Silva lives in the same district as Seaborne. But so what?

District 3 didn’t vote for Silva in district elections and therefore he doesn’t “represent” them. Had Silva been running only against people from his district, Sebourn for example, the election for that seat might have gone a different way. The vote was split between 12 people here in 2016 and that skewed the results. The case has been made that people like myself helped keep Bennett’s numbers down on the right which is why Silva even won. You’re welcome.

So 2018 will be a wash for district elections because 2 districts will get their own “representatives” on Council while the other three districts get nobody to represent them until 2020 at which point there will be a new Census and Map 8A will likely be changed owing to demographic shifts. We’ll have functioning Districts from 2020-2022 and the cycle will start anew.

2022 will be the first election under the new hotness that will replace Map 8A and districts won’t be equally represented based on the newer map and this recurring problem until after the 2024 election at the earliest.

There’s no logical reason, except for incumbency protection, why any 2 random districts couldn’t be up for election in 2018. If the argument for district voting is that we didn’t have somebody of Asian or Hispanic descent on council then it’s a logical fallacy to settle the suits and then pretend that lily-white Jennifer Fitzgerald can represent district 1 simply because she lives in said district. I say draw it out of a hat and then when the currently elected at-large council members are finally up for re-election in 2020, should they not be drawn in 2018, they can move if they want to run again that year or they can wait until their district is up again normally.

Stay tuned because there are more issues with this district map issue, and Map 8A specifically, that people ignored before voting to implement it.

16 Replies to “Map 8A Won’t Represent You”

  1. The seats expiring in 2018 are up for election by district that year. It’s as simple as that. What should be asked is why a dividing line was drawn right through Sebourn’s neighborhood. You also might want to check out where Larry lands.

    1. Not according to the City Clerk’s office. District 5 will have no representation if Sebourn and Chaffee’s seats go up so they can’t do that so one of them will likely go up and not the other.

  2. I think it was though out pretty well: stall real districts as long as possible and keep downtown unrepresented forever.

    Fitzgerald works for Pringle and they don’t let stuff happen by accident. Not when there’s a big roast on the table waiting to be carved up.

  3. Silva has nothing to do with any of this. He doesn’t hold the seat for any particular district. Is there a stated objective to fill the empty districts as quickly as possible? Who says that should be the goal? What do the current addresses of councilmembers who were elected citywide have to do with anything?

    They should run the two districts of councilmembers terms whose are ending in 2018 and 2020, respectively.

    1. That’s sort of my point. Silva living in Sebourn’s district is a reason being given, and I’ve heard it from a few different sources, why Chaffee’s district will be put up for a vote with District 5. That’s why the current council’s addresses matter because it’s already being said that “So-and-So lives in District Such-and-Such so therefore…” as though that district voted for that person which they did not.
      Can the city legally just run the 2018 election as normal being that District 5 has and will have no council member? This won’t be known, from what I’ve been told, until after January.
      People voted for something without having even a quarter of the information. None of this is set in stone yet and the folks saying that they’ll just run “district x” or “so-and-so’s seat” are making broad assumptions.

      1. So logically the seats should just expire when they expire. 2018, 2020. Those people in those seats remain “at-large” council members as it were. So in 2018 Sebourn and Chaffee are done as incumbents.
        The districts put up in 2018 (2 seats) and 2020 (3 seats) should be drawn out of a hat because it doesn’t matter where Fitzgerald, Silva or Whitaker live owing to them not being voted for in a District voting system. If District 1 comes up then Fitzgerald can give up her current “at-large” seat and run in the District election or she can stay “at-large”, have her term expire in 2020 and not have a chance to remain on council (unless she moves) until that seat is up again in 2022.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.