Earl Netwal wrote:
>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."<
Wow. It must've taken alot of effort to contort your point of view so that simply
attending a free meeting for an hour or two becomes a "tax". And, yes, it is a
representative system as much as a primary where everyone who bothers to go to the
polls and cast a vote has a voice in who our nominee will be.
>Without having to expose my views and opinions to a constituency for evaluation and
confirmation. I represent no-one except myself.<
Do they ask you many questions when you go to vote in the primary?
> 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.<
I don't particularly fear new people entering the party process. Nor do I fear any
particular "interest group" organizing to have their voice heard in the party process.
> 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.<
That's always the risk of a democracy, that you'll be outnumbered. If you have a
problem with that, go out and make sure that turnout is equally strong in your area.
If you don't want to do the work necessary to make sure you're P.O.V. is not
outnumbered, fine. Just don't complain.
>A city convention becomes even more of an insiders game, since those with
less city specific concerns are marginalized.<
But if we kept the system we've used for the past twenty years, those with city
specific concerns ARE marginalized. The people who attended the caucuses two nights
ago are people who are concerned with the direction of our federal and state
governments. And some of the people who are more neighborhood or city oriented chose
not to run for delegate positions or didn't show up because that isn't where their
interests lie. However, next year when the council, the mayor, the Park Board and
other positions are up, those same people may be interested in becoming delegates.
Under the rules we have be using for twenty years, they'd be S.O.L. Thanks to David
B., they will now have the opportunity to participate. This is the situation in my
neighborhood. The President of my neighborhood association and one of my fellow board
members chose not to run for delegate spots. They're not bad DFL'ers or single issue
zealots. They just put their focus and energies in local issues not in larger
ones.
They shouldn't be penalized for that.
>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.<
I've never been to a caucus that's turned into the Algonquin Roundtable. Maybe I
should move to Nokomis.
>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.<
If this is preferable, then why are we penalizing our candidates for the Legislature?
Why don't we have caucuses in off years and let our legislative and state wide
candidates play to a pre-determined audience?
>And not incidentally, as Tim Bonham points out, caucuses are expensive in
terms of dollars as well as time and effort.<
Tough. They were expensive and time consuming this year too. I set up 22 out of our 24
caucus locations in SD 59, so I know. And I'm more than willing to help next year. The
expense and work is worth it to allow regular non-wealthy citizens to have a real
impact in the democratic (small and large "D") process.
Loki Anderson
Marshall Terrace
Secretary, SD 59 DFL
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
-Martin
Luther King Jr.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster.
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
