First the background: > > Don Jorovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (Edited for brevity by Erik Riese) > >Let's talk about the election results in the city, > >Gore-Lieberman 115,566 or 67%; Bush-Cheney 38,865 or 22.5%, Nader-LaDuke 18,180 or >10.5%. > > > >What does this mean in terms of what Minneapolitans want? There are many > possible interpretations, but I'll start with a controversial one just to > get the ball rolling (and to get people yelling at me): Nader was > overplayed. . . . reading this list, one could get the impression > that Nader was the number one choice in Mpls, but his 10.5 percent showing > was in the end very weak, as voters came to their senses and exercised good > judgment. > --end of Don Jorovsky post-- Ken Bearman then wrote: ===== > [KB] This is short-sighted, condescending, and misses many points that the > DFL would like ignored. There are significant groups of citizens who are > hungry for candidates (and parties) who represent their views. But the way > we elect our council members and other office holders conveniently shuts a > lot of citizens out of representation in the governing process. > > 10.5% of the votes represents more than a full Council seat. If we > Minneapolitans could vote for Council in a proportional representation > election, Greens all over the city could demonstrate whether they're "weak". > So could IP supporters or Libertarians ... or even Republicans! Or do > those 22.5% represent another "weak" showing who deserve only scorn but > nobody in the governing? > > The DFL routinely gets 67% of the votes citywide. Currently 12 of the 13 > council members are DFLers ... 92.3%. This kind of unrepresentativeness > needs to be corrected. Finally Erik Riese snatched up his keyboard and said: I was predicting a Nader/LaDuke win in Minneapolis, but then again I also predicted a 51-11 Viking victory on Monday. I guess I'm no Morgan Mundane. Despite my poor prognostication skills, I'm certain that the issues raised by the Nader/LaDuke ticket are important aspects of political discourse that deserve serious consideration, not derision and realpolitking. I don't vote to say "I voted for the winner." I vote as an inherent duty of citizenship to support the views and opinions expressed, to select the person(s) I would most want to see in the office in question. If no candidate fits the bill, I leave the ballot blank. Yesterday, I voted a blank ballot in many elections because I wasn't inspired by the candidates or I didn't know the candidates. A local election next year will no doubt bring us 10, 11, or 12 DFLers on the City Council. Is this right. Must US democracy be so bi-polar? Despite our status as the "cradle of democracy" we are now an ossified, crotchety old fart who can't or won't keep pace with the times. There are democracies allowing proportional representation whose electoral systems are much more attentive to views of the people. An active polity is crucial to the sustainability of the republic and denigrating people in the minority whose views can not even find a seat at the debate does not engender interest in political activism. In Germany a 5% showing at the polls in a national election results in seats in the Bundestag (sp?)! In the US you can poll 200,000 more votes than your opponent and still be in danger of losing! What is wrong with this picture? A candidate like list member Steven Anderson can run a solid, upstanding campaign, poll 21% and walk away with nothing to show for it but a lighter wallet. Last spring, proportional representation advocate Tony Solgard, running for DFL endorsement in the Senate district 62 convention gave a speech that was head and shoulders above his five opponents in terms of inspirational content, call to direct action, and pure wit and wisdom. He polled 20 some votes out of over 1,000 conventioneers. What happens to brave people like this who put themselves before the public are are rejected? How many intelligent souls have we lost from community life due to our antiquated system? Can we rely on those currently benefiting from the status quo to propose meaningful change? I can answer this last question. No. We need to praise and celebrate these people. I was truly inspired by Mark Dayton who closed the final major party Senate debate on Sunday night saying "Your opponent is not your enemy, but your friend who makes you better through challenge." This is the spirit we simply must engender in our political leaders. After the election, we have to go back to work and work with our opponents. So, now the Citywide elections can start, right? Who had that great list of candidates and potential candidates? Let's get this show on the road! -- In cooperation, Erik Riese Seward 9-1 and ready for real representative democracy and not this winner take all crap - er, pardon me - stuff! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
