At-large SF Supervisors are a Dubious Idea, and Why Would You Want to Give GOP a Voice?

By Erica Bleicher, San Francisco | 9/29/2023

Regarding “How to change the way S.F. elects supervisors to increase representation” (Letters to the Editor, Sept. 25): David Fairley’s letter supporting TogetherSF’s proposal for at-large supervisors is misinformed. 

Why would we want to add more supervisors just for the sake of at-large representation? Why would we want to dilute the ability of our elected district supervisors to make decisions? Why are we trying to give voice to Republicans in San Francisco? Do we really think they will move our city forward?

It’s also interesting to see a billionaire-backed organization pushing for at-large supervisors. We must question the motives behind the political decisions of powerful people.

As mentioned in the article, district elections have given us our first Black female supervisor, first Asian American supervisor and the first openly gay supervisor. Why are we trying to return to a more regressive system that hinders the possibility of progress in our local government?

I also want to remind folks that we shouldn’t be bending over backward to give voice to Republicans — who make up 7% of registered voters in San Francisco — when Republicans in other states (or cities in California) where they are the majority would never think of doing the same for Democrats.