To respond to David Weinlick's concerns:
> One problem with the Minneapolis system right now
> is that we have caucuses that are completely tied to what city-wide
> races are up for election in November, which means that they cycle in
> and out. We do not necessarily have them every odd year.
But is it really so confusing to say we elect delegates every election year?
Anyone who is involved in the process can easily say that it isn't confusing, but with the numbers of new people this year, I have found that many people are indeed confused. I want a process that is most accessible to people who have never been involved. You have not truly addressed the issue of the purpose of the caucuses. If the caucuses are to be a great way to build civic involvement, then they ought to be EVERY year, not EVERY ELECTION year. Focusing on elections is part of what alienates new people. They may feel that once the election is over, they are no longer needed. That is the impression that we need to fight.
> I understand this argument when it comes to people moving into the > city, but otherwise, how does this limit the numbers of delegates?
Because people get activated by city candidates, city issues - a whole raft
of things that can happen in the 12 months between Caucus Day 2004 and
Caucus Day 2005. (Think smoking bans, or the police chief's conduct, or
school closings - major issues no one was thinking about at this year's
caucuses.)
Then why would we only have caucuses in election years? Those issues come up all the time--they are not tied to particular races.
Changing the rules in mid-cycle is not fair.
That is why I mentioned this as a concern, in the part of my message that you didn't quote. I have made it clear to Earl Netwal that I am concerned about people who get caught in the middle of any possible change. Ironically, the people that would most hurt may be the die-hards who stepped aside for new blood this year.
>Many people who attended this year assumed that > their delegate status would be good through next year's convention--I > spent quite a bit of time explaining that to people on caucus night.
But if they were going to show up next year anyway, no loss. The city-year
caucus lets them participate - and lets new people in.
Absolutely. My point was that many new people are confused by the process. You would be amazed at the amount of confusion this whole process generates. We take a lot for granted because we have been involved in the process, but many new people are confused by even the language we use.
One way to keep them interested is let people join the DFL endorsement
process over the next several months - not "freeze" the list when many city
candidates haven't even announced.
We need to develop some way to do so that prevents stacking the convention in some way, but that is a reasonable idea. I would like to see some proposals of ways to implement such a plan.
> If we have city-only caucuses some odd years, but not others, I think
> we are apt to continue this kind of confusion. That is why I support
> something regular that everyone can anticipate--either have caucuses
> every single year, or every other year.
It's not complicated: DFLers elect delegates every election year.
Now go out on the street and ask the average person which years those would be...
I would wager that some people don't know by March if an odd-numbered year is an election year--at least, that is, the new people whom we wish to attract.
David Weinlick Armatage
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
