Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY COUNTY
2 charter veterans oppose weighted voting plan
BY MICHAEL LAMENDOLA Gazette Reporter

    Two people involved decades ago in the creation of the current Schenectady County legislative structure said they oppose a weighted vote system under consideration by the chamber’s majority Democrats.
    Ruth Bergeron, vice president of the Schenectady County League of Women Voters in the 1960s, and Dr. Arnold Ritterband, a member of the Citizens for the Charter Commission, each worked to seek passage of the Schenectady County charter in a referendum in 1965. Both are Democrats.
    Bergeron and Ritterband said in separate interviews on Monday that the county Legislature should adopt a nonpartisan redistricting approach to accommodate population changes in Schenectady County revealed by the 2010 Census, even if that involves adjusting current legislative boundaries.
    “There is a big clamoring for objective redistricting,” Bergeron said. “The county should look at where the census tracks are and see what they can do to adjust the city.”
    Ritterband said the Democrats’ proposal is “going way too fast. There ought to be discussions and this should be done in a nonpartisan fashion.” ............................>>>>.............................>>>>..........................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01200&AppName=1

What a shocker! 2 DEMS and the LWV agree with the majority here that the County DEM weighted voting scheme is totally wrong.

     "In spirit weighted voting violates one man/one vote," Ruth Bergeron said. "Factional voting is uncommon anywhere in the country," Dr Rittenband said. Both served on the County charter committee. Gee, where did I hear these exact points last week? Leading DEMS are running from this County scheme.

Quoted Text

County Legislature eyes weighted voting
John Purcell 04/20/11
Census shows population growth, city loses representation power

Don’t be surprised if, at some point, you hear The Schenectady County Legislature passing a resolution 13.0122 to 1.9878.

County Attorney Christopher Gardner has proposed the county pursue a weighted voting system after the 2010 Census data revealed the voting power of representatives is out of line with how many people they represent. Democratic county legislators generally seemed to favor this proposal during the Tuesday, April 12, meeting, but Minority Leader Robert Farley, R-Glenville, said the weighted voting proposal would result in his district losing representative power.

“They don’t want to turn around and upset their 13-to-2 majority, it is all about politics,” said Farley after the meeting.

The legislature approved a public hearing to be held on the proposed weighted plan during the next regular meeting on Tuesday, May 10, at 7 p.m. New census information has District 1 with 32,717 people, 10,905.7 per legislator of three; District 2 with 33,418 people, 11,139.3 per legislator of three; District 3 with 51,261 people, with 10,252.2 per legislator of five; and District 4 with 37,331 people, with 9,332.75 per legislator of four. The weighted voting proposed would have District 1 legislators casting 1.0572 votes each, District 2 legislators casting 1.0799 votes each, District 3 legislators casting 0.9939 votes each and District 4 votes weighted at 0.9048 per legislator.

Gardner said in his proposal that if the legislature followed the county charter as written, nine new legislators would be required, increasing the 15 representatives to 24, which would increase the legislature by 60 percent...................>>>>.........................>>>>.........................http://www.spotlightnews.com/news/view_news.php?news_id=1303333924

Quoted from the Spotlight.

Quoted Text

"In order to avoid the huge increase in the size of government, and to avoid the potential mischief of single-member districts, which could encourage gerrymandering … the proposed reapportionment plan would retain the current legislative boundaries and proceed to rectify inequalities in voting strength through weighted voting,” said Gardner in his letter to legislators.

Farley proposed what he thought was a simpler solution, while he didn’t favor increasing government, to combine District 1 and 2, representing the northern and southern portions of Schenectady into one district and adding a legislator to the combined district. The district lines have remained unchanged since 1965 when the legislature was created and the Board of Supervisors, consisting of municipal leaders, was tossed aside.

Increasing representation to reflect population growth isn't increasing government, its increasing representation.   Creating new departments and bureaucracies and stuffing them full with patronage jobs is increasing government.  For both Gardner and Farley to say the increase the number of representatives to represent population growth as an increase in government just shows the level of stupidity we are dealing with.  I find it hilarious that they are using "growing government" as a reason to justify the people being unrepresented.

I'm sure there are unnecessary county services that can be cut to pay for the increase in representation that will accurately reflect the will of the people.  

[/quote] I'm sure there are unnecessary county services that can be cut to pay for the increase in representation that will accurately reflect the will of the people.  [/quote]

The understatement of the week. Let's start by eliminating Metrograft and Lumpy Kosiur's summer camp. We don't need to increase any representation. In 2000 one seat was added to both District 3 and 4. Instead of adding seats to the City-eliminate these 2 extra seats.

     Heavens No! These seats are held by DEMS so the only possible solution is adding a seat in District 2 home of 3 the State's emptiest neighborhoods, Vale, Mt P and Hamilton Hill. This saves 2 DEM incumbents seats and adds a seat that would also go DEM.

Quoted Text

County Legislature approves weighted voting
John Purcell 05/11/11

League of Women Voters, minority leaders and residents voice opposition

County Legislature Democrats approved the move to a weighted voting system despite an outcry from residents.

The Schenectady County Legislature voted 13-2 in favor of the weighted voting system on Tuesday, May 10, with Republicans Robert Farley and James Buhrmaster casting the dissenting votes. The local law will be effective starting Jan. 1 of next year, which is meant to balance and equally represent the four districts after results from the 2010 census. Under the approved system District 1 legislators cast 1.0572 votes each, District 2 legislators cast 1.0799 votes each, District 3 legislators cast 0.9939 votes and each District 4 vote equals 0.9048. This gives the both city districts more voting power.

“This is an evolutionary procedure and it isn’t really going to have a big impact on our voting here, but it does set up a more equitable system,” said Legislator Karen Johnson, D-Schenectady.

The weighted system won’t affect voting on normal resolutions too much, but primarily will have an impact on resolutions requiring super majority approval, such as when approving bonding and capital improvement projects, said Legislator Philip Fields, D-Schenectady. The two key elements to this plan for the Democrat majority was it didn’t add anymore more legislators and didn’t require redrawing district lines, which haven’t been changed they were formed in 1965...............................>>>>.....................>>>>......................http://www.spotlightnews.com/news/view_news.php?news_id=1305143000

Well, let's look forward to some change coming on the board this November.  Imagine the shock to the party in control, especially if come January they have more seats, less voting power.

Since the DEMS already have 13 of 15 seats doubtful they get any more seats. Especially with PG and PZ running in the City and SS Savage blasting off to the State. Whats hilarious is that every DEM Rotterdam/Hilltown representative voted to DECREASE their vote. What was ANG and TJ Hooker thinking about? Sure wasn't reelection. As usual put partisan inside baseball ahead of the people you allegedly represent.