Perhaps I missed it in an earlier post, but the chief advantage for me in having separate city caucuses is that it allows our very, very mobile and transient popualtion more of a voice in the process. When I was a young, single mother living in this city, we moved every 1-2 years. Not knowing where I would be from one year to the next kept me from participating in City politics, even while active with my (various) senate districts. I was able to participate in my caucuses, senate district conventions and state conventions because they were all, generally, within a couple of months of each other. We all know from past city conventions who is NOT well-represented - poor, often minority voters who likely have changed address in the 15 months between caucuses and City Convention. I'll be at the City Convention this year, and will oppose any effort to change the rules. It may turn out that the change will not work as we had hoped (like the Saturday caucus of 4(?) years ago), but we should be willing to give it a chance to work.
Dorian Eder Windom Park
David Brauer wrote:
On Mar 4, 2004, at 2:12 PM, David Weinlick wrote:
If we were to return to biennial caucuses, we should at least distinguish between delegates to the city and senate district. That is, if our attendance can be maintained. I know that people in many precincts would have liked to be delegates to at least one of the two conventions, and I don't want to shut people out, especially when it may be to make room for someone who doesn't choose to attend the other convention anyway.
I, too, respect Earl's views. He grounded them well in a cogent philosophy of what a delegate should represent. I disagree with what being a delegate means, but I appreciate his logic (and long involvement).
I would respectfully ask one thing of those who might propose repealing the new city-year caucus at this year's city DFL convention: please don't do it until after 2005.
Obviously, I'd like the system to have a test-drive. But my plea to wait is grounded in fundamental fairness.
At Tuesday's meeting, the rule was you didn't have to be a delegate this year to be a delegate next year. Some people I know didn't run, knowing they'd have a chance next year.
However, if the 2004 city DFL convention abolishes the 2005 city caucuses, it would change the rules mid-game - shutting out those people who thought they could wait according to the rules as of Tuesday.
THAT would truly be bad process, something we all want to avoid.
(Note: I hope anyone who IS a delegate this year would support not changing next year's caucus requirement. If you have questions about my point above, please e-mail the list, or me directly. Thanks, too, to David and Fred and Loki for their support.)
David Brauer Kingfield
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
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
