I prepared this in word, I hope the formatting doesn't cause too many problems for readers. I share my thoughts, fully understanding that there are those who will disagree. I'd rather have this debate now prior to starting the new system. If my motion fails, I will be disappointed but not so much as if I had failed to raise my concerns and later regretted it.
I believe the new caucuses will disenfranchise more than they will mobilize, serve to divide rather than unify our party, constitute a barrier to participation, destroy a significant advantage of our traditional approach and be even more likely to result in under representation of some areas than is now the case. There have been many critics of Minnesota's caucus system over the years. Many other states have switched from caucuses to primaries. Honorable people have challenged the caucus process as being elitist, effectively locking more people out than they bring in. In Minnesota we have resisted that change to primaries. We like our caucuses. We resist the idea of primaries because they dilute our power as activists and substitute money for the influence we enjoy as active participants. Separate city caucuses could in practice become even more vulnerable to an elitism charge. These city caucuses are likely to be sparsely attended, and in essence will serve most of the time as an insiders game, while always being vulnerable to take over by and/or undue influence by organized local interests. (And these need not always be principled progressives, some may remember the T Party.) Normally only those Democrats with an active interest in municipal affairs can be expected to attend. While unintended, those Democrats primarily interested in international issues, war and peace, human rights, or state and metropolitan issues will become disenfranchised. Similar to how advocates of those issues are restricted from the Minneapolis Issues List internet discussion group. They may also be interested in municipal affairs, but at some threshold, many will balk at attending a second round of caucuses to ensure that their voice is heard. (or participating on a second list) Rather than seeking to divide itself, our party has for over 50 years sought to unify itself by addressing issues on all levels. By developing policies and platforms that transcend individual levels of government. We seek to elect a cadre of competent officials on all levels capable of working together. Many in our party believe it's alright for a city council candidate to be asked about their position on abortion or free trade, etc., whether or not it is a city issue. Our party has traditionally scheduled its caucuses around the Presidential and Statewide election years, for a reason. They draw more people. They broaden our base. It's clear to me, that next years city caucuses will have a tiny fraction of the turnout we enjoyed this past year. Rather than bringing new people into the process, thousands of people who attended caucuses this past year will not return. A city caucus will effectively disenfranchise far more existing delegates than will be brought in as new first time delegates. While the proponents of the new caucuses will cringe to hear me say so, the requirement of second caucus next spring constitutes an unintended form of poll tax. If you are a Democrat and wish to participate in all levels of Democratic policy making you now have to attend not one caucus every other year, but two to be eligible to participate at the national and the local level. As hard as our party has worked to increase participation particularly minority participation, does it seem likely that we will encourage or discourage participation by requiring attendance at a second caucus? There is a distinct and valuable benefit to our historic system, particularly as it relates to City elections. Pity the poor candidates seeking school board endorsement Saturday. There was no way they could campaign effectively person to person to explain their positions and even more importantly to hear from us the delegates what we thought and were concerned with regarding our hugely important schools. In contrast, when we return to the traditional caucus system both incumbents and challengers for city office next year will have the luxury of knowing who the delegates will be. They will be able to campaign and talk with us regarding our opinions. Such a process makes for far better candidates and far better elected officials. There are ongoing problems with our caucus system under the old and new systems. Delegate mobility particularly in some areas is an issue. The individual delegate who moves is able to vote in their new precinct. However wards with high mobility may be less influential at the city wide level due to loss of delegate strength. The new system does not guarantee parity either and similar disparities are likely to arise from a different cause. Imagine a year in which 1, 2 or 3 city council races are contested and the others are not. The contested ward races will draw more delegates, inflating their relative influence in a mayor or other city wide race. I suggest the new caucuses do more harm than good in this regard, although I can understand some disagreeing with me over that. I admit another problem, but believe it to be minor. I have been told that a few might have been or would have been delegates did not become delegates in order to allow new people to become involved. That may be. But I doubt that there could have been that many, since while we had a record turnout we still did not fill the alternate roles in many precincts. I suggest the disenfranchisement of thousands of delegates this past year is more onerous that the disenfranchisement of a handful of delegates who decided to skip this years district and city convention. Earl Netwal 12-9 62nd Dist DFL Chair Nestled in the urban forest that shade the Nokomis East Neighborhood 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
