>>Mark Anderson input: Great post David. The rebuttals to your posting basically say "Her motivation does so matter!" They seem to think the motivation is important in itself -- they don't really care about the underlying issue of whether it's more fair to have an earlier election or leave it be. To them, that Phyllis Kahn may be doing this for partisan reasons is more important than whether it's good for the city. If all you care about is if your side wins, and not how you get there, then they are correct, whether her method is better for the public is irrelevant. The Greens try to portray themselves as more ethical in than everybody else; in this case at least we see them as crass as the rest.<<<
Actually, if that's all you got from these posts over the past week, I'd suggest reading them again Mark. I believe that the end result is important, but I do not believe that the ends always justify the means, which is essentially what one is saying when they say motivations don't matter. If you stick to the letter of the law, it allows no room for compassion, for extenuating circumstances, for mercy. Motivations make a difference. And if you stick with the letter of the law, this cycle is what is established and should not try to be forced to change without a mandate for the citizenry. And for the record I'm DFL not Green. It's already been established that most people don't think it's good for the city. The Council doesn't want it, when it's come up twice in the legislature, none of the Minneapolis Representatives supported it and I believe that no one from her own party supported it, and I've yet to hear a groundswell of support for it. For many of us, the issue of it being bad for the City is already clear. And again, it's not that the cycle should not be changed, but just this attempt to force early elections is not right. The question then arises that if Phyllis keeps pushing it after it's failed twice, the majority of Minneapolitans (especially those elected) don't support it, the voters voted to have it established in this manner knowing the considerations, and the additional costs in a budget crisis like we have, why does she do it? It's not a simple case of questioning her motives, it's that the majority of people seem to be against it and it contradicts the established will of the people. One wonders "why" in order to determine some logical reason for doing this. I don't care if its partisan or not, I've yet to hear a clear, honest reason to push forward with this. Jonathan Palmer Victory 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. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ 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
