Michael Atheton wrote, "If people thought they we electing someone for
a four year term and legislation changes that outcome, then it is
circumventing the will of the voters."
Michael is talking about new elections "circumventing the will of the
voters" and "chang[ing] that outcome." But those phrases are being misused,
or at least used sloppily. As between letting the elected candidates serve
out a full four-year term, and holding an earlier election in light of the
new census numbers, the "will of the voters" is unknown because that
question was not on the ballot. The only "outcome" involved was the
election of a candidate, not setting the length of the term. The only point
on which we can know the "will of the voters" is on the one question that
the electorate actually decided: whether they preferred Candidate A or
Candidate B. Holding an earlier election does not "change that outcome"
because it involves a different issue--how long, rather than who--and the
voters can easily keep the original outcome, or change it, as they will.
For all anyone knows, the voters may have preferred that the elected
candidate serve for only two years, with redistricting imminent. Or maybe
not. There is just no way of knowing. Either way, though, the "will of the
voters" will decide the outcome.
It is accurate to say that holding an earlier election is not what the
voters expected when they elected candidates for a supposedly four-year
term. But it is not accurate to say that holding an earlier election
"circumvents" their will, because their "will" on that point is unknown.
And the "will of the voters" will decide the next election, whether it is
held next year or three years from now.
BRM
Brian Melendez
St. Anthony West (Ward 3)
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
