I want to argue AGAINST the so-called "mixed" rep system.
Suppose 6 of the present 13 seats were to remain in districts. So long as
the city remains over 60% DFL odds are it would have over 60% in most or
probably all districts. ALL the district seats would remain DFL, almost
forever - as they do today. Almost all would be "owned" by their
incumbents for as many decades as they wanted them. As today. Such
security from unelection encourages arrogance and corruption and neglect
of most constituents (except the rich ones). As today.
Single member districts - what we have today - are THE problem. Why should
we perpetuate them? If we like them so much, why have any city-wide seats
at all? But if we don't like the unrepresentative govt we get with them,
why keep any? What is this neither fish nor fowl monstrosity?
Again: The 7 city-wide seats would be impermanent, constantly changing
occupants, as they were voted in or out in close harmony with the changing
desires of the electorate. This is a GOOD thing. So good it should be the
only mode, not merely one alongside an inferior mode.
The city-wide seats would constantly change. The district seats would
hardly ever change, filled with a few DFLers for decades. Now, guess which
group would have and get all the power and money? Right - the PERMANENT
one, the district one, the one with the 6 permanent DFLers who can be
bought off with big bucks by the same corps and developers that buy them
off now. We'd THINK we had better representation - better form - but we'd
notice that all the corp/TIF/cop brutality etc issues were still being
decided the same way as today. We'd have the bought-off DFLers (surely a
goldmine for them) and one or two of the city-widers selling us out nearly
every time. We'd have gone thru all the work, only to be screwed all over
again.
If we HAVE to have these %%&$$ districts, then I for one would INSIST on
TERM-LIMITS for district seats. One term in, then run for a city-wide
seat, or retire. This at least would give the "fix-my-pothole" crowd their
essential pot-hole fixes (if they're lucky) BUT make impossible the
arrogance and corruption of permanent occupants of permanent seats.
Permanent occupants of permanent seats - what we have today - is the
recipe for the disaster we have today. Why cook the same toxic meal all
over again?
What's good about city-wide is that it makes it much easier for us to GET
RID of bad reps NOW - not in 20 years when they retire or die.
(Indidentally, I wouldn't like the district system no matter WHICH party
might be able to claim them. Were Mpls more conservative, they would all
be filled by GOP. Just as bad. Were Mpls more progressive, by Greens -
who then would likely be corrupted by big money, just like everyone else.)
--David Shove
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Arthur LaRue wrote:
> A few people have mentioned a system of proportional representation (which
> is what this talk of at-large seats stems from) which is commonly known as
> "mixed": having some seats be elected from wards or districts, while others
> are "at large". This seems to me a good solution: if everyone were "at
> large" there might be little connection to the local neighborhoods, and,
> conceivably, the entire council could focus on the interests of one
> group.(hmm...sounds slightly familiar?)
> With a mixed member system some reps are accountable to a locale, and a
> population; therefore (in theory) would advocate on behalf of their
> particular constituents.
> Who can tell me what structural changes would need to occur to put this into
> effect? Charter? State law?
>
> Arthur LaRue
> 6-6/Cedar-Riverside
>
> _______________________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
