[Summit] At large council proposal

[libertyliterary at cox.net]

I agree with this comment.  As soon as it starts costing more money to run, 
people with money have more influence.  Also, the greater the number of 
people represented, the less voice or significance of each voter.  I like the
fact that our smallness gives us more contact and communication with
our legislators and city officials.

Blessings,

Liberty G

---- e2shatter2 at cox.net wrote: 

=============
I don't like the idea. It takes a lot more money to run citywide than in just a ward and the at-large
council members often end up representing downtown business interests. That's what happened
in San Francisco when supervisors (SF is both a city and a county) were elected at large rather
than by district. 
---- Jonathan Howard <jon at ceffect.com> wrote: 
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/


_______________________________________________
Summit mailing list
Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
http://mail.sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/