OK, here's a specific proposal to elect DFL delegates in city election years (instead if at state precinct caucuses the year before.) The first resolutions will be introduced at next week's DFL conventions in 7th, 9th, and 12th wards. I still need "resolution captains" in all three wards, so please contact me directly at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This proposal is open to revision - especially since I need your help deciding one facet. Treat this like a second draft that can be revised. I'd like final wording done by Wednesday or Thursday. OK...We're amending Article 4, section 2 of the DFL Minneapolis Organization, Constitution & Bylaws. (Full text at: http://scc.net/~t-bonham/MPLSCONS.HTM) The section currently states: "The business of the ward convention shall include consideration of endorsement for City Council and the election of ward coordinators and alternates. **Delegates and alternates elected at the most recent precinct caucuses shall be delegates and alternates to the ward conventions.** Ward conventions shall be convened by the ward coordinators." I propose changing that second sentence to: **Delegates and alternates will be elected at ward conventions in city election years.** My proposal is that anyone who shows up to the ward conventions would be a "delegate" at the ward conventions. The next step is establishing delegate eligibility. I'd suggest using current state language. I couldn't find the state DFL bylaws online. If someone can post the language, I'd be grateful. As for voting, all delegates will get one vote each, with no distinction based on precincts (a la St. Paul). Why no precinct balancing? A) It's simpler and faster. The convention meets as a ward group. With no precinct caucusing first, we save time, but still can have lots of debate. B) It's more logical. I see no need for a precinct "electoral college." Our endorsement procedure should reflect the ward-wide election process. Precincts are merely units for administering elections. They're not designed to be representational in any way. Now I need your help. Should all ward "delegates" also be delegates to the city convention, or should there also be city delegate selection? Currently, all ward delegates are delegates to the city convention. But the previous year's precinct caucuses limit delegate numbers. Precinct attendees elect Senate-district delegates. Those Senate-level delegates become city ward delegates the next year. But with this "open ward-convention" proposal, there could theoretically be an unlimited number of city convention delegates. Here are two scenarios: Scenario A: All ward "delegates" are also eligible for the city convention Advantages: 1. Simplicity. Ward delegates show up, endorse a council member, and go home. They are automatically delegates to the city convention. 2. Most participation. Maximum number of ward and city delegates. Disadvantages: 1. Disadvantages low-turnout wards. While precincts don't matter within wards, wards do matter at the city level. A hot Council race -- as in the 10th ward this year - could produce many more city delegates from that ward than from the 5th ward, where there is no contest. (Yes, the 10th already is higher-turnout than the 5th, but this would inflate the difference.) 2. Huge, more costly, and perhaps unwieldy city convention. Planners already say it's too big -- 2000-plus delegates -- and this could make it bigger. Just counting votes could take a couple of hours. Scenario B: Ward conventions elect some specified number of city delegates. Advantages: 1. Makes city convention more manageable. Hundreds, not thousands, of delegates can still pick the mayoral endorsee. 2. Can balance by ward to compensate for contested council races. 3. Familiar. This is basically how the DFL does business at its even-year precinct caucuses. Everyone gets a vote at the precinct caucus, and they elect Senate district delegates. We're just transposing that on a ward-citywide model. Disadvantages: 1. Lengthens ward conventions. City delegates will have to be picked after the ward endorsement. 2. Potentially confusing at the ward level. If 500 people show up to a ward convention and have to pick 100 delegates, how the heck do they do it? Walking sub-caucuses, majority vote? (If not enough ward delegates want to go to the city convention, this won't be a problem. But we can't assume that.) 3. Hypocritical. We're trying to boost participation at the ward level but cut it at the city convention? (I would argue it's not hypocritical. We are maximizing representation at the ward convention level, but these people pick who goes on to the next step. The city-year reform is designed to improve timeliness and participation opportunity, not just sheer numbers.) I'm sure there are lots of other arguments, but I'd like to know what you think. Thanks for helping craft this! 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
