JUST LAST MONTH San Francisco completed a grueling process of carving the city into 11 new electoral districts. New communities will now be formed around district needs, and new alliances will have to be built, as the city moves forward with these districts in place for the next 10 years.

But just as we're turning our attention to the first election that will be based on the new lines (in November, supervisors will be elected in the newly drawn districts of Two, Three, Six, Eight, and 10), the political machinery that succeeded in overturning district elections in 1980 and fought the return of district elections in 1998 is again being cranked up to undo this system.

Why? Because the November 2000 elections dramatically changed the balance of power in the city, through the election of a majority made up of progressive and independent candidates. District elections do not serve the interests of big business and the political machine, which can field moneyed candidates who carry out their agendas. So it's time to defend the value and promise of district elections before these forces unleash their money machine and slick ad campaigns.

The district system has enabled a greater diversity of people to run for office. People who have less access to money, including those without support from the political establishment – people of color, women, and community-based grassroots activists – are more likely to consider running for public office. In 1977, the first time San Francisco experimented with district elections, important leaders such as Ella Hill Hutch, the first female African American supervisor, and Harvey Milk, the first openly gay supervisor, were seated. When district elections returned in November 2000, there were 87 people (plus 4 official write-ins) who ran for office in the 11 districts – compared to 17 in the prior election in which candidates were elected citywide.

District elections provide the opportunity for real grassroots campaigning, giving candidates the chance to have a personal dialogue with potential constituents about their needs and desires for the city. District elections encourage our representatives to be more accessible and accountable to the district residents who elected them. At the same time, the relatively compact size of San Francisco requires candidates to deal with citywide issues that cross district lines, such as housing, transportation, and health care.

Under this system, it is possible for candidates to respond to constituent concerns without spending exorbitant amounts of campaign money – and to win. In the November 2000 election the cost of running a district-level campaign was set at $75,000, although some candidates exceeded that voluntary limit. High spenders, however, did not necessarily win, as the losses by establishment-backed candidates proved. In 1998, the last year of citywide supervisorial elections, spending of up to $250,000 was allowed, a figure that some well-financed candidates were able to exceed.

Many new faces were brought onto the board by the district elections of 2000 – leaders who likely would not have been elected citywide. Were we able to achieve the full promise of district elections in electing a diverse board in all the ways we define "diverse" in San Francisco? Of course not. But after just one round of district-based elections, we now have a solid representational system that is supported by voters and has already brought much positive change, a greater diversity of thought, and responsible, accountable governing to the city.

District elections also brought us new district-based organizations such as the Eight Alliance, a nonpartisan progressive organization of individuals who live, work, or have a compelling interest in District Eight that endeavors to strengthen progressive unity, power, and goals