I agree with David. While I disagree with Wizard Marks more often than not, I have every reason to believe that she'd be an excellent addition to the library board. The first comments on this thread posted about her were every bit as unfair as Ms. Mark's comments about former councilmember Lisa McDonald this past weekend.-------Peter Schmitz
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Dave Piehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The subject of appointed or elected boards is a lot > more complicated than that. In my opinion, if every > position were elected, the sheer volume of positions > would be overwhelming to people causing confusion and > possibly even discouraging people from voting. It > isn't exactly anti-democratic to appoint positions, as > long as they are appointed by elected officials. I > say that because I believe that when people vote for > individuals, it's more than just a popularity contest > - they are voting for the ideals the candidate > espouses. One could infer that folks appointed by > elected officials would at least embrace the ideals > most likely to further the agenda of the elected > official, so I guess what I'm saying is that appointed > individuals (if appointed by elected officials or > bodies) have the same legitimacy inherent in an > elected position or body. Several ultra-conservatives > have used the "appointed" argument in an attempt to > discredit the legitimacy of the European Parliament, > because representatives of each country are appointed > rather than elected - those reps are appointed by the > governments of each member country, all of which > happen to be strong constitutional democracies... > > While it's an odd thought to think that someone who > lost an election might ultimately be appointed and get > the position anyway, but there are other ways to look > at this. For one thing, if the person has taken the > time and effort to become a candidate, they've > demonstrated a level of interest exceeding that of the > general public. If the former candidate got more than > a few votes, then they are at least popular with a > portion of the voters. Further, I think the process > cannot exclude anyone for reasons other than gross > misconduct without the process itself becoming > illegitimate. > > I didn't vote for the candidate referenced in the > original post, and may or may not in the next election > depending on circumstances at that time. However, it > is her right to pursue an appointment just the way any > one of us could have, and apparently about 30 people > already have. > > David Piehl > Central > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > REMINDERS: > 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn > E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
