Jack writes:
>Lets see if I got this right. ... So the proposed amendment would have
precinct caucuses
>each year.
Not exactly. We'd have ward conventions in the odd-year city election
years - just like they do now. The difference is, you don't have to show up
the year before to participate in endorsing city leaders!
>Given the sparse caucus attendance even in Presidential years
>I would hazard a guess that attendance would sink even lower were
>caucuses to convene yearly or that delegates could serve only one year.
We're all guessing here, so this could happen. But I doubt many people go
during a presidential year only because to show up next year. My guess is
that presidential-year attendance won't be hurt -- and you may get even more
people, the new ones recruited by council candidates in city years, who like
participating and show up during presidential years. Now the party more or
less "goes dark" to outsiders for 2 years, no way to build up habits.
>Why the unrest over a caucus system that has worked quite well for 50
>years?
Your reasoning is contradictory: earlier, you write that current caucus
attendance is "sparse," but now we shouldn't change anything? Standing pat
sounds like a recipe for decline to me - exactly what is happening.
I'm proposing trying something new and giving city-level campaigns closest
to "the people" a chance to help invigorate DFL at the grass roots level.
It might not work - and then a more logical argument is getting rid of the
caucuses. But I'd like to try new ways to fertilize the grass roots before
we do that.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
