L. Hogan writes: > On Mon, 04 Feb 2002 09:24:31 -0600, David Brauer feigned innocence: > "But wait! If the DFL is losing elections, why is Rep. Kahn's change that > forces an additional round of elections pro-DFL? > This has always been the illogic in Michael's argument; there is nothing > built-in that favors the DFL. In fact, his argument is quite patronizing to > the Greens, since he assumes they would be steamrollered by the DFL in '03."
Then L. feigns weakness: > Yes, well, $$$$$ has the effect of steamrollering parties outside the > "gruesome twosome". I believe Mr. Atherton did in the first instance make > the point that the DFL would turn up the volume a great deal in '03 having > learned in '01 that they can lose their "sure thing" winners to (or as the > result of) Greens. The DFL lost their elections because they dropped the > ball, simply put (because they ran poor candidates or poor campaigns). > Kahn's bill gives them the opportunity to pick it up again. The DFL in '01 > can be likened to the over-confidant hare, while the Greens are taking the > "slow but sure wins the race" approach. I'm sure a DFLer would be pilloried by L. and many Greens for suggesting the Greens only won because the DFL "dropped the ball." I don't believe it, and I don't think most Greens do either. The Greens won - or narrowly lost in Ward 2 - because they worked hard and ran good candidates. There's every reason to believe they will do better in '03 because they have a) eliminated the wasted-vote argument and b) will attract better candidates after proving they can win and c) have better voter ID lists and experienced leadership. Plus, the Green agenda will have received more publicity via the party's councilmembers - which a Green has to regard as an asset, right? Sure, the DFL might raise more money and field better candidates in '03 - one would hope so! But the Greens might do better, too: they will get more "people power" because they have shown working for them pays off. (They will probably also raise more $$ because they have council representation.) This seems healthy for democracy in '03, or '05, or whenever. L. also revives a straw man: the awful, skull-splattering money of the Minneapolis DFL Party. Shhh...hear that sound in the background? That's every city DFL candidate - current or former, winner or loser - laughing ruefully. Everyone knows the city DFL raises no money - in fact, candidates have to contribute to the party for the sample ballot. In short, it's every DFLer for themselves! Many central-city council races in '01 cost less than $15,000; we have a $300 contribution limit for council races, and $100 in non-election years. And money has hardly proven to be equal to winning - ask Sharon, or Lisa McDonald. If the two Green winners were outspent, more's the proof. I grant L. his/her argument that the '03 reform would have been better introduced in 2000 (although we didn't know the exact representation distortions then, and they are a motivation). However, the bottom line is still the bottom line: there is no inherent advantage to the DFL, or the Greens, whenever the next round of city elections is held. Michael Atherton's analogy to the Rams and Patriots doesn't work, especially by his oft-stated standard of objective evidence and verifiable fact. The only fact is that the Patriots (and Greens in 2 races) won; Michael guesses about who might win in a replay, including his Madden-like analysis that the Pats/Greens only won by surprise, is just that, a guess. But maybe the Pats (and the Greens in two wards) were simply the better team - that's the only objective fact we can draw from one Super Bowl and two Minneapolis campaigns. Another flaw in his analogy: yes, the DFL gets to "replay" the Greens in two wards, but the Greens get to replay the DFL in TEN, including one they narrowly lost. The question really is whether you believe Rep. Kahn's principle is fair: that we shouldn't wait until '06 (!) for councilmembers to be seated in districts based on the 2000 Census, assuming the societal cost of truncating four-year terms is not too high (which it may very well be, but that's a fairness argument, not a partisan one). By the way, L. and other Green opponents of this bill risk looking silly if a Voting Rights lawsuit forces via the courts what Rep. Kahn is trying to accomplish legislatively. Who is really screwed by preserving districts drawn from the 1990 census? The residents of Ward 2 & 6 - prime Green territory - whose bulging districts contain as much as 26 percent more voters than in Wards 11 & 12 but with no additional representation! And who else? The minorities of Minneapolis, who are concentrated in wards with growing populations but have no increased representation to show for it! I thought this was a group the egalitarian Greens naturally want to empower - but perhaps they are as whitebread elitist as the DFL on its worst days! Except for this debate, Greens more typically proclaim the potency of their message and the rising prospects of their party in this and other forums. "Slow and steady" includes '03 as well as '05. The bravado they showed in the trenches and at the ballot box last year is what they really believe - and the rational consequence flowing from that is '03 elections are a Green opportunity, not a DFL trap. David Brauer King Field - Ward 10 > Advertising. Campaign workers. Mass mailings (such as the sample ballot > sent to everyone in Wards 2, 5, and 6). Campaign wardrobes! Office space. > The DFL can (and does) buy it all. They'll up the ante for sure in '03. And > $$$ is a thing the Green Party at this point cannot compete with. > Level the playing ground (public financing and other campaign reforms), and > I'll change my tune. > > Perhaps I would believe that Ms. Kahn's bill was introduced in the spirit > of democracy if no one had the faintest idea that redistricting was going > to occur this year, thus causing the fluctuations in ward boundaries she is > so concerned about. However, it is my assumption that she is an informed > politician, and knew *in advance of* the '01 election that ward boundaries > would change. Why, then did she (or anyone else) not argue for 2-year terms > for this past election *in advance of* the election? > Someone please explain this, not explain it away. > L. Hogan > Ward 2 > > > > ==== > People seem decided to attack or criticise those who speak the truth > straightforwardly rather than those who utter lies gently. --Me > > **Please Trim Unnecessary Text** > > > _______________________________________ > 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 _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________ 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
