I think having a separate set of city caucuses is a bad idea. As with many seemingly sound ideas I fear the law of unintended consequences will enter in to cause more problems than its proponents may have envisioned.
There are several reasons why I feel this move is unwise. Philosophically, the heart of the issue rests on ones interpretation of what the role of caucuses is. Additionally, I have some serious practical concerns with the idea as well. The role of caucuses has been a contentious one in some circles for many years now. A significant set of political observers have suggested that our caucus system has been the source of the polarization of both political parties. I tend to share that concern. A number of respected leaders have over the years urged that we shift to a primary as a vehicle to broaden the scope of the process to include more rank and file voters and not just the well entrenched insiders. Others, see caucuses as the foundation of the DFL party, in that caucuses emphasize people participating in the system, as opposed to primaries which reward those with larger financial resources. Having been around a while, I can effectively argue either side of that one. One of the main attacks on the caucus system is that it is elitist. An insiders game. Until, last night I have witnessed the number of people attending my DFL caucus dwindle from caucus to caucus. Anyone who showed up, and wanted to, becomes a delegate. The caucus instead of being a deliberative gateway designed to screen and express local caucus concerns and opinions becomes instead a formality, which some might liken to a form of poll tax. Insiders, and advocacy groups could expect anyone they organized to pay the tax, could walk in and proceed at least to the district level and have their say on endorsements for state, and city offices. As long as anyone who wants to can walk through the system, it is hard to say it is a representative system. It represents only those who are willing to pay the "tax." Now as a happy "tax" payer, that doesn't bother me too much since I know I can at least get to first base, delegate-hood, without effort. Without having to expose my views and opinions to a constituency for evaluation and confirmation. I represent no-one except myself. I have personally long been in support of reducing the number of delegates per precinct to encourage actual decision making at the local precinct level. That is another topic, but is critical to understanding part of my objections to the city caucus. The caucus serves multiple purposes. One is the selection of candidates, the other is defining the political party itself. I maintain that the primary purpose of caucuses is to define the party itself, rather than to select candidates. The purpose of the party is to select candidates to advance the principles of the party as expressed by its membership. A membership made up every two years by those who attend precinct caucuses. A party whose interests transcend local, regional, national and international issues. A party whose scope is capable of integrating these multiple viewpoints into an amalgam that seeks to shake out common consistent policies up and down our local and national political institutions. That's a tall task, one that we have always been less than proficient at, and yet we do it better than anyone else. If we choose to, we can have separate city caucuses, county caucuses, national and state caucuses, school board caucuses, etc. Each would allow organizers to recruit and motivate their particular interest groups to attend who have specific self interests at each level. Each would permit new people to be brought into the system, but each would serve to fragment rather than build a cohesive unified party. Lacking an entry barrier at the precinct level special interests would eventually dominate even more than they do today. With a multi-purpose caucus building a unified party, we have people for whom a given set of local or national issues may not be their primary concerns. Their participation in the process presents at least some obstacle to single purpose advocates in any one arena, since they may need to be convinced and or educated in order to gain majority approval of a platform plank or an endorsement. Though our process is far from perfect, having the broader participation from people whose interests cross wide areas of public process is healthier than without this leveling influence. Despite snipping on this list, the DFL party is not a machine. It is machinery. A tool that permits the expression of public opinion on a wide range of public issues. Machinery that seeks to include not isolate varying points of view or centers of focus. A machinery that is by its very openness vulnerable to significant influence, if not capture, by well organized minority positions. The broader its base, the less likely it is to swerve out of the mainstream. This may dismay those who advocate radical change yesterday, but in the long run has proven to be the primary engine for positive societal change and advancement within this state and nation. Now to practical issues. If anyone is still reading. Imagine if you will a city wide caucus where for example there is a hotly contested city election in say Wards 6 and 8, while the rest of the city council races for whatever reasons are incumbent love-fests. Attendance in contest specific wards could easily double "normal" attendance, while in love fest wards, without a contest only hacks (humans always contributing knowledgeable service) attend. Come city convention, the proportionate influence of two contested wards could easily outstrip the attendance of half or more of the city' other wards, undermining representative principles. Annual caucuses or perhaps caucuses three of every four years, increases the "poll tax" aspect of the process. A city convention becomes even more of an insiders game, since those with less city specific concerns are marginalized. Without having to deal with the burden of proving their point to less city specific informed but caring Democrats well organized special interests have a radically easier time advancing their idiosyncratic interests. Caucuses become contests for endorsement rather than occasions for public input into policy and ideas. The advantage is given to organizers rather than to philosophies. The time between caucuses and elections for city races is foreshortened dramatically from the current system. Under the current system, city candidates have a known audience of delegates to whom they can approach and explain why they should be endorse in a thoughtful manner. This gives more room for information and policy to play a role in the delegate's decision making process. And not incidentally, as Tim Bonham points out, caucuses are expensive in terms of dollars as well as time and effort. While the idea of a city caucus may have some appeal to many as a way of focusing attention on city specific issues, I fear in the long run it will result in less rather than more representation. More fragmentation of the party, and even less cohesion. I've spent too much of your and my time on this already. I do not think city caucuses will serve the party or the city well. For the record, I've attended every precinct caucus since 1972 and spent 18 days over the past six weeks calling Democrats in my district to encourage them to participate in the process, not for a candidate, but rather for the party. We are in a rebuilding phase, and have by virtue of a very large turnout infused our party with a lot of new and returned voices that I am confident will help us steer a more positive and centrist party, still committed as always to social justice and a future of hope for all Americans. Our party has the same machinery it did the day before yesterday, but it is a new party that I would like to trust for a full two years before we renew it again in 2006. Earl Netwal Associate Chair 62nd District DFL >From the urban forest in Nokomis East Near downtown Nokomis village 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
