--- Mark Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the "anti-Green" is mostly coming from people who are aware > of how > entrenched the DFL is in Minneapolis and how much greater the access > to > campaign resources are for DFLers when compared to Greens, which puts > them at a significant advantage if early elections were held.
[TB] I think its more from paranoid Greens who think they might lose an election. > Part of the claims of partisanship are due, I think, to the fact that > both > the Green council members, if I recall correctly, get the choice of > either > moving from their current homes or facing another incumbent council > member > who now shares a ward with them under the new boundaries. If I also > recall > correctly, there are no instances where any two other incumbents on > council face that situation. Is that simply a coincidence? [TB] Actually there are 2 DFL members of the Council who would face another incumbent should all of the current councilmembers run for re-election. In at least on of those cases the DFL incumbent probably wouldn't be the strongest candidate. Any time you redraw lines there is a good chance that some incumbents will end up in the same district/ward. Look at the state legislative elections in 2002 where incumbents faced each other and numerous congressional districts around the country. > Another part of the claims of partisanship are due, I think, to who's > behind > the push for early elections. From what I've seen, it's pretty much > all > hardcore DFL party activists or elected officials that are crying > "disenfranchisement" as opposed to regular citizens, who, going by > this forum, are wondering what the fuss is all about. [TB] In general its activists who start the push for any major change. I don't think the DFL had a monopoly in supporting timely elections based on the new ward boundaries. > With apologies to Wizard and Rep. Kahn, nobody is really being > "disenfranchised" in any meaningful way right now, but all of us who > voted > in 2001 for city council members did so with the expectation that > those terms would be four years. [TB] Constitutionally the reason we have a census every 10 years is for reapportionment. Is it reasonable to have a census in 2000, draw new lines in 2002 and wait until 2005 to use them to elect office holders who won't take office until 2006? I think not. That is precisely the reason that the MN Senate is elected to a term of only 2 years each census year (2000 election), so that Senators can be elected from new districts after the lines are drawn (the 2002 election). Regardless of how long you thought a person might serve when they were elected, if the term is longer than the Constitution allows, it needs to be fixed. The ballot doesn't ask the question, how long should this person serve? although that might be an interesting idea. You can't reward Councilmembers who could have fixed the problem with a longer term although it is approaching the point where an election before Nov. 2005 isn't very meaningful. Terrell Brown Loring Park 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
