Letter: At-large districts once again protect the Democrats’ single-party rule
Letter to the editor
We all know politicians tend to stretch the truth, and intellectual honesty is overall in short supply.
But the “debate” over single-member districts (RIP) takes it to new highs.
Let’s be crystal clear about one thing: The reason the establishment opposed single-member districts and worked hard to get it overturned via a deceptively-worded referendum, is extremely simple. IT PROTECTS INCUMBENCY and ensures they never have to fear losing elections.
When pressed on it, they will spin nonsense like “it means you get five representatives instead of one,” but that is baloney. The ONLY reason they oppose it is that they enjoy their current position of never fearing losing an election. With the entire county voting, Gainesville’s heavy Democrat majority cannot be outvoted by outlying areas. Even when Commissioners want to step down, the establishment simply anoints the successor and puts out “the word” to the loyal Democrats in Gainesville.
You see, the dirty little secret is, if we did have single-member districts, we would likely get one Republican on the County Commission (via District 2, which has a slight GOP plurality). We’d still have four Democrats, but a 4-1 majority isn’t good enough for the establishment that runs this county with an iron fist. Plus, when a candidate only has to persuade 1/5 the voters, an upstart primary challenger becomes more possible.
For example, in District 4, Ken Cornell would be vulnerable to a strong African American
challenger.
The mouthpiece of the local establishment (whom I shall not name) likes to show up on
social media and say that even WITH single-member districts, results in Districts 1, 3,
and 5 did not change in 2024. That is true. But believe me, he knows that the real trouble for
the establishment would be in Districts 2 and 4, with the possibility that a primary challenger from a smaller city could be a future threat in Districts 1, 3, and 5.
To repeat, for the establishment, this is about one thing and one thing only: PROTECTING DEMOCRAT INCUMBENCY. And as an added benefit, a 5-0 majority (rather than 4-1) is awfully nice for the despots who have turned Alachua County into a pothole-laden mini-dystopia with poverty and unemployment rates above the state and national average. (As BOCC Chair Ken Cornell recently said, “Unanimously speaks loudly.”)
When politicians don’t fear losing elections, it has bad outcomes, regardless of the party. And when the local establishment overturned single-member districts, any hope died of our “leaders” actually CARING about accountability to their constituents.
Voting in these elections is pointless now. Oh, and by the way, I’m a left-leaning (though unaffiliated) voter, but somehow I don’t enjoy seeing my fellow citizens disenfranchised, even if they are [gasp] Republicans.
Sadly, our “leaders” couldn’t care less and aren’t even honest enough to admit the real reason.
Dan Richman, Alachua County
The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Assertions of facts in letters are similarly the responsibility of the author. Letters are limited to 1,000 words; they may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.
Watching Cornell & co smugly LIE about the reasons they cared so much about repealing single-member districts was just nauseating. Good lord, just admit it, fellas.
Who is the “mouthpiece” you don’t want to name?
Likely the ‘Mark’ who was somewhat offended by Jake’s caricature of ‘lil Kenny in a recent political satire piece—maybe even the ‘Mark’ who got a promotion after crashing a county vehicle in South Florida several years ago.
Maybe they’re one and the same. It would be interesting to know how filing a lawsuit against your employer gets one promoted to director though.
If you are incapable of arguing the merits of a guest column, at least try to be accurate in the facts of your clumsy attempt to change the subject.
Some jobs have a vehicle that includes unlimited use. That was part of my compensation package. There was no crash and no damage was done to a county vehicle. A pedestrian stepped in front of the very slow moving vehicle, was bumped and fell. They insisted were not injured and that no medical attention was required. Police on the scene did not find me at fault. I never filed a lawsuit against the county.
Later the person that was bumped filed a lawsuit. The person that was the County Attorney at the time chose to settle it for $15k rather than go to court.
Again, I was not cited, not found at fault, and was ready to testify to the facts. Rightly, no action was taken against me. Several years later I received a promotion base on the effectiveness of my job performance.
Understand now?
Thanks for reminding me. Because of your accident, the County had to rework their restrictions regarding county-owned vehicle use and place restrictions on distance allowances.
Thanks also for the correction. Although you didn’t file a lawsuit, the conclusion was that you threatened to. It’s the same method many attorneys utilize to avoid costly litigation.
You know the old saying, “Where you sit determines what you see.” One might conclude the pedestrian didn’t have quite the same seat you did. Best thing, the pedestrian wasn’t seriously injured—that might have cost taxpayers even more.
Your hyperbole and misdirection are shameful.
Yes, county policy was changed, but that wasn’t on me. I used the vehicle appropriately. The then-County attorney put this accident on a commission meeting agenda and tried to convince the commission that I should be held personally liable, even though the vehicle was insured.
When forced to defend myself, I showed the Commission the unlimited personal use agreement for the car, signed by the County Manager, and explained that I was not found at fault in the accident. I explained that if they followed their attorney’s advice, I would be forced to defend myself in court. And that I would win. The Commission voted unanimously to support me and dismissed the attorney’s preposterous advice.
While I wish the pedestrian had not stepped in front of the car, I did nothing wrong, and the Commission agreed. Your attempt to use this to attack my character is shameful.
Keep it up, and I’ll be forced to defend myself again
.
You voted for it, you got it,
Now that we know who I am, why don’t share who you are? Or is anonymity what make you so brave when you are lying?
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
“If you’re not a part of the solution then you’re a part of the problem.”
You offer NO solution(s).
And where are ANY viable opposing candidates?
When the at-large system effectively locks out any conservative challengers, potential conservative candidates decline to run.
Excellent point. We have certainly seen that recently.
Isn’t the local Republican Party to blame?
Is the MAGA hate and incompetence machine driving away thoughtful and decent candidates that don’t want their names affiliated with so much nonsense and corruption?
What’s the point Ricki, if the Democrat machine just goes around to the homeless shelters and retirement homes to collect voters and tell them who to vote for.
Please share your evidence of this.
Wow. That was very well stated.
Since the libs seem to have a lock on local elections (only because our electorate aren’t responsible enough to vote) the only way to control their frivolous spending is to cut off the available tax revenues. The referendum to limit property tax would be a good start, however, I’m sure they will try to shift it into fees and surcharges. So…unless the electorate wakes up and votes we will be stuck with crappy roads until we take away their piggy bank.
You’re 100% correct vote yes on amendment three take the money out of their hands
100% agree. Wyatt Zintiz might have succeeded in his bid for District 2 if the ballot were not so limited.
Before single member districts were mandate by the courts in Miami-Dade County, a Republican could never win a county-wide race. The Commission was mostly white, black and completely Democrat. Conservative Hispanics could not win county-wide. This all changed once the change was mandated and today Miami-Dade County Commission is much more diverse and often is majority Republican. Why can’t a judge rule the same way for Alachua County?
Here’s a little reality check. The majority of Florida counties, 40 out of 67, have at-large elected commissioners. They are: Alachua, Baker, Bay, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, DeSoto, Dixie, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, Hardee, Hernando, Highlands, Holmes, Indian River, Lafayette, Lake, Lee, Levy, Liberty, Marion, Martin, Monroe, Nassau, Okaloosa, Okeechobee, Osceola, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Santa Rosa, Seminole, Sumter, Suwannee, Wakulla, Walton and Washington.
38 of the 40 have all Republican commissioners. Why? Because the majority of voters in these counties are Republican. These include our neighbor counties of Marion, Gilchrist, Levy, Clay, Lake, Citrus and Suwannee.
Is the author of this column suggesting that all of those counties move to
single member districts and gerrymander a district to elect a Democrat? And will he lead the charge for that?
I think not.