Talk:Council of the District of Columbia
|WikiProject United States / District of Columbia||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|George Washington University project||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Two of the at-large members must not be of the majority party.
Can someone explain exactly how this works? I'm assuming that DC residents get to cast five votes for at-large reps. How is the party distribution broken down? --Jfruh 22:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
no - 2 are elected every two years and the chair is elected every 4 years. you get two votes. if, for example, two democrats got the most votes, and the republican got the 3rd most votes, then the 1st democrat and the rebuplican would get the seats. --Scarykitty 01:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Each party selects only one at-large candidate during the primary, so there's no possibility of having two Democrats getting the most votes, because there will be only one Democrat on the ballot in the general election. KCinDC (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
At-large Election Rationale?
While I understand the mechanics, is there a reasonable explanation as to how it is legal to restrict the composition of any council seats by party? If the council were elected using a proportional representation voting method, I can see how the Republican party and, perhaps, the Statehood Green Party would get a seat. But that's not how this is done. If the city vote 90%+ for Democrats, why shouldn't all at-large seats be held by Democrats?
Compensation and Privileges
Is it worthwhile and noteworthy to include the compensation, benefits, and other privileges given to councilmembers? For example, as of 2002, councilmembers have the same parking privileges as members of Congress, such as parking in bus stops, parking on restricted residential streets, and paying parking meters (Washington Times article). As a point of comparison, the article on the United States Congress includes a section listing members' compensation and privileges. - Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. —KCinDC (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- You gave the source, and I agree it has sufficient notability. I'd use "since 2002" rather than "as of", with the former meaning 'from then to now' and the latter suggesting 'it was the case then'. —ADavidB 23:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)