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.
Earl, this is true under either system. We will have ward and city conventions under the old or new system. The only folks who show up are "Democrats with an active interest in municipal affairs" in either case.
The DIFFERENCE that under the old system, the 2005 participation pool is limited to "those Democrats with an active interest in municipal affairs" chosen in 2004. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is eligible to participate in 2005 - PLUS new people activated by city issues, or new issues.
If you fear special interests, really, you should not favor caucuses. I personally favor a more open caucus process as the best of all worlds.
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.
First, the analogy is flawed because while the Issues list has rules about topic scope, the DFL does not.
But in any event, the concern seems to me a piffle.
No matter which system we use, the delegates who show up for city endorsements do so because they are interested in city issues. I regularly attended precinct caucuses and city-year conventions under the old system and TONS of delegates dropped out because they only cared about national or state stuff. Their choice - but the old system resulted in declining attendance, too.
Since we're going to keep endorsing in city years, why not let more people in?
Earl's point about the representativeness of delegates might make some sense if caucusgoers actually made a choice among possible delegates. But they don't, as he acknowledges later in a different context:
... while we had a record turnout we still did not fill the alternate roles in many precincts.
Practically, this means broadly representative caucusgoers don't choose broadly representative delegate — delegates select themselves. Even in high-turnout presidential years like the one just passed.
Since we're going to let anyone who wants to be a delegate be one, why not allow more people to do so in 2005? The 2004 self-nominees are in either way.
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)
This is a legitimate concern that I believe wise party leaders can ameliorate.
Bear with me for a bit longer here:
We have 2005 ward and city conventions under either system. All the new system does is add precinct caucuses.
My proposal is to hold the precinct caucuses and ward conventions the same day, in the same place. Let the candidates address precinct delegates en mass like they have done at ward conventions.
Essentially, all you add is a brief round of self-selection. All precinct attendees who want to be ward delegates likely will be. They merely step forward, names are taken, and we're even with the old system - only with much fuller delegate rolls.
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.
Nothing stopping you from doing that under either system. In fact, you can get like-minded neighbors to the city-year caucuses and amplify your voice.
If you're outnumbered, that's democracy - but the more the merrier.
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.
Beating my dead horse: if there's a small turnout in city years, its not because of the new system. Any 2004 delegate motivated to show up in 2005 will under either system — and new people can, too.
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.
the cringe is because the analogy is inflammatory and flawed (the poll tax being a financial disincentive to restrict poor blacks, compared to what is at worst a bit more time.)
But I know what Earl means - adding time to the ward conventions may discourage some. As I've noted above, the increased time is probably very small and the participation has a much greater chance of going up.
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.
This is misleading. Again, we have ward and city conventions under either system. Under either system, you had to attend a presidential-year DFL gathering and a city-year one. The only difference is (likely) pro-forma precinct caucuses to funnel more attendees into the ward conventions.
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.
What you view as a virtue is what got me to organize a change. It's easier to speak to a closed list. But you don't win elections from closed lists. You don't win elections excluding good DFLers who want to vote on endorsements but weren't savvy enough to know they had to show up LAST YEAR to help endorse.
And you darn sure shouldn't exclude a bunch of good DFLers who maybe only realized what's at stake when a city issue crystalized AFTER the presidential caucuses (think those whose schools are being closed - or those who think they should have been).
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 agree with the limited point. I think there are additional people who chose not to participate this year merely because they care more about next year's races.
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.
As I've argued repeatedly, no one who participated this year is disenfranchised. And lots of other people will be enfranchised.
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
