THERE'S NO REASON for supporters of district elections to get alarmed just yet: while Sup. Gavin Newsom is making noises about returning San Francisco to at-large elections of supervisors, pollsters we've talked to say the district system remains popular. But as Savannah Blackwell reports on page 13, there have been rumblings for some time from downtown types who want to get rid of an electoral system that helps take some of the money out of local politics and that has brought into office the most progressive Board of Supervisors in 25 years. And it's entirely possible that Newsom will launch some sort of district elections-repeal campaign as part of his run for mayor: a charter amendment campaign loosely connected to his mayoral efforts would free him to raise money without the restrictions of local campaign-finance laws.

The most likely scenario would be some kind of hybrid plan: the anti-district elections forces may propose a plan to elect six supervisors by district and five at large, or (as Barbara Meskunas from the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods suggested to the San Francisco Examiner's Frank Gallagher) they may try to reduce the size of the board from 11 to 5.

All of those proposals are nonsense, of course: San Francisco, unique among California municipalities, is both a city and a county, and the supervisors have the work of both a city council and a county board. Reducing the number of supervisors would be a horrible idea – as would anything that took even a small step back toward at-large elections.

The key advantage of the district system: a candidate can actually run for supervisor, and mount a credible campaign, without raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, the most effective form of campaign finance reform may well be small electoral districts, where it's actually possible to reach a majority of the voters by walking precincts and shaking hands.

When you compare the current board to any at-large board elected in San Francisco since the 1970s, the difference is dramatic. Just a few years ago the board meetings began and ended so quickly that it was easy to wonder why the supervisors met in public at all; on anything that mattered, the decisions had already been made behind closed doors. And the mayor virtually always got what he wanted.

These days, the supervisors actually represent neighborhood constituencies. They debate issues in public. They serve as a check on the mayor's power, not as a rubber stamp for the mayor's agenda.

District elections of supervisors is by far the most important political change that progressive-independent-neighborhood forces have won in this city in more than 20 years. It's absolutely critical that defending the district system be at the top of the agenda. If Newsom is serious about repealing district elections, the supervisors should refuse to put his charter amendment on the ballot – and if he goes ahead and collects signatures, every credible organization in the city will have to oppose it with all of the resources at their disposal. And no progressive organization should endorse any candidate for mayor who doesn't commit, loudly and publicly, to defending district elections, now and for the duration.