I have been thru this for years with Cam.
I strongly agree re Instant Runoff voting for mayor and other single
offices. It doesn't raise the boundary issues that PR does and so should
be easier to pass.
I strongly favor PR, but not Cam's "mixed member" version. I favor one
with NO boundaries, NO single member seats. That's where Cam and I differ.
What's bad about our present system is single member winner take all
districts. It is fertile ground for SAFE SEATS - once elected, most
members will be re-elected for life, and know it, so there is no check on
arrogance and corruption and neglect of constituents.
This is what we have today - 11 of the 13 seats are safe for the DFL;
permanant job security. The rest of us have to worry about being laid off
- but not our safe seat politicians! And by golly they LIKE it that way
and will FIGHT to keep it.
I was told in school that council members are our servants - not we
theirs. Do we have an obligation to hand over our interests to them so
they can have a nice life at our expense? That's what we're doing now.
Public servants should stand in respect and fear of the public - they
should be scared they will be found wanting, and should work their butts
off for us. We should have the power to scare them, and should exercise it
constantly. Nothing makes a pol sit up and take notice like a follow pol
kicked out of his seat! Nothing makes them more arrogant that the
guaranteed safe seats of the present single member districts.
Cam's plan is HALF good. Half the seats are at large, subject to many
challenges, and so "permanent" only if the member is very good for a long
time.
Cam's plan tho unaccountably keeps 6 SUPER SEATS. Based on the voting
patterns that guarantee 11 of 13 safe seats for the DFL today, odds are
at least 5 would be DFL SUPER SEATS, and probably all 6.
Envision such a council. 6 permanent unremovable DFL SUPERs, and 7 very
removable transients in the SUB seats. All the powers that be need to run
the whole show is to buy off the DFL (much as today), and then ONE of the
transients. The supers will be even more arrogant and corrupt than today.
We will have busted our butts to change the charter, so we will be stuck
with this mess for years.
Cam's plan is one that would be loved by the 6 DFLers to win the SUPER
seats. The 5 who don't get them will be very upset, but once they're out
the 6 will laugh at them. It tosses a very big bone to the DFL, WITHOUT
ANY BARGAINING! It just hands them a huge prize - FOR NOTHING! Any lawyer
who "bargained" like that would be sued.
The only way I could be convinced to come on board Cam's plan is if there
were TERM LIMITS for the SUPER seats. One term in a super seat, and if you
want back in, run at large for one of the SUB seats against all the
opposition. After being out of a SUPER seat for one term, you could run
for it again. No consecutive SUPER seats. This would greatly diminish the
arrogance and insulation of the (now less super) super seats. It would
have that local district pot-hole fixin' side some people are so fixated
on, but it would bring in fresh blood every term.
The reason we have safe seats is that Mpls is more DFL than anything
else, and DFL voters will vote the "lesser of two evils" on a regular
basis. Our guy may be no great shakes, but the GOPer- Runs over his
Granny, pulls wing off flies, and will end Mpls as we know it! etc etc.
Thus our permanant arrogant corrupt "servants", our out of control city
govt more responsive to corporations and CEOs than the people. Why should
we work our butts off for charter change, then hand over HALF the council
to the old bad way we did all the work to banish? No way should any public
servant have a GUARANTEED SEAT - one we no longer have any real power to
change.
--David Shove
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Cameron A. Gordon wrote:
> A couple years a go I was part of a group called the Minneapolis Election
> Reform Coalition. We drafted two charter amendments aimed at improving
> Minneapolis elections.
>
> With one the City Council would be elected using proportional representation
> with some members coming from single-member wards and some from "party" lists.
> They call this "mixed member" because it provides for both geographic and
> idealogical representation.
>
> The second idea would have the Mayor elected using preference voting and the
> instant runoff voting method.
>
> While more complex and a little different from what we are used to in the United
> States today, most everyone who has taken a serious look into democratic
> election systems seems to agree (at least I do) that these options would greatly
> improve our democracy. These ideas are and have been used successfully
> throughout the world.
>
> Here are some more details about the two ideas.
>
>
> PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR CITY COUNCIL
> Proportional representation allows groupings of voters to win seats in
> proportion to their share of the popular vote. The reform proposed for
> Minneapolis is modeled after proven systems used in democratic nations
> throughout the world. It ensures that the highest percentage of voters possible
> has representation and that each party�s representation reflects as closely as
> possible its proportion of the vote.
>
> Through its proportional representation proposal, we are convinced it can:
> * Ensure both majority rule and minority representation
> * Provide for more varieties of political ideas, not just the views of the
> majority
> * Give better representation to citizens from all cultural and ethnic
> backgrounds
> * Preserve geographical representation while offering city-wide perspectives
> * Produce more exciting issue-oriented campaigns with higher voter turnouts
> * Offer alternative parties a fair chance to elect candidates.
>
> Under the new plan, the City Council will still be made up of 13 Council Members
> but only six will come from wards and be elected by the people who live in those
> wards. These wards could match the six Park Board Districts already in place,
> simplifying city government and ensuring that all areas of the city are
> represented. The other seven �at large� council members will be elected from
> among independents and party lists by all the voters in the city. We could use
> a flexible and open definition of "party" in this case to include any registered
> group or campaign committee, thus encourage citizen activitsm and organization.
> In this way, howeverm the election would be "partison."
>
> Com election day, each voter will have two votes�the first for the ward council
> member, the second for one of the lists of up to 7 city-wide �at large� members.
>
> A party�s (or list's) number of council members will be determined by its share
> of the total vote. One thirteenth, or approximately 7.7 %, of the vote will be
> enough to elect one candidate. If a party receives 16% of the vote, they win
> 16% (or 2) of the seats on the council. If the receive 56% vote they win 56%
> of the seats.
>
> INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING FOR MAYOR
> Unlike the two-round system we use today � with the primary/run off campaign and
> election in September followed by a second election in November, � instant
> runoff voting finishes the job with only one election. It is cheaper. Election
> officials and taxpayers don�t have to foot the bill for a second election and
> candidates don�t have to raise money for two races. Even more importantly, the
> decisive election occurs when voter turnout is the highest.
>
> Instant runoff voting, also known as �majority preference voting,� is not new.
> It was invented in 1870 in Massachusetts and is used successfully in countries
> throughout the world including in Ireland to elect their president and in
> Australia to elect their parliament.
>
> On the instant runoff ballot, voters simply rank candidates in order of
> preference or choice (1, 2, 3, etc.) or, if they prefer, they can just vote for
> one candidate as they do presently.
>
> The way ballots are counted stimulates a series of runoff elections. If no
> candidate wins a majority of first choices, the last place candidate (who had
> the fewest first choices) is declared defeated. Ballots of the voters who
> ranked the defeated candidate first are then redistributed to the next choice
> candidate as indicated on each voter�s ballot. Last place candidates are
> successively eliminated and ballots redistributed to next choices until a
> continuing candidate has won over 50% of the votes or only one candidate
> remains.
>
>
> These reforms are all about fairness, opportunity and choice. I think that
> Minneapolis voters want more and better choices and an election system that is
> fair to all voters, all parties and all candidates.
>
> I would certainly be delighted to share more details and even the specific
> language of the proposals with the Charter Commission or anyone else who is
> interested.I do hope that the Commission will take a serious look at alternative
> voter methods and Instant Runnoff Voting and Proportional Representation
> specifically as they continue the serious work of improving our city charter.
>
>
>
>
>
> In peace and cooperation,
>
>
> Cam Gordon
> 914 Franklin Terrace
> Mpls. MN 55406-1101
> 612 296-0579, 332-6210, 339-2452
>
> Seward Neighborhood, Ward 2
> =====================================
> "Significant, enduring change will require an institutionalized
> shift of power from corporations and government to ordinary
> Americans."
> - RALPH NADER
>
> www.jimn.org/gpm/gpm.html (MN Green Party)
> www.mngreens.org
> www.votenader.org
>
>
