Ed Felien wrote:
"The current system allows elected officials (at all levels of government) to sell their votes in exchange for campaign contributions. Herron didn't do anything that any other elected official has done, is doing and will do as long as elected officials raise cash to run for office. The only difference between Herron and the others is that other politicians would have given Ortega and Sabri tickets to a fundraiser. That would've made everything perfectly legal, and the candidate can keep the contributions after."
---------------------------------------------------
(AN) - It's understandable that one would like to see some form of electoral/charter reform in this city. Clearly, full public financing of municipal campaigns would be good step, although it seems that the city is pretty broke as it is now, but nonetheless this is a worthy goal. But it is also understandable the concerns that less CMs mean less representation overall. It seems that the 6/4 structure would do just that.
---------------------------------------------------
The Strib wrote:
"Reduce the number of wards from 13 to six, taking care in redrawing the boundaries to ensure that requirements of the Voting Rights Act are observed. Elect four council members at large. Minneapolis needs more officials with a citywide perspective, plus ward representatives who are required to consider the needs of a broader swath of neighborhoods."
David Brauer wrote:
"Although it conflicts with my principle of "smaller districts allow cheaper candidacies," I'm intrigued by multi-member districts. You could have six wards, two reps each, plus the mayor (or four wards/three reps). The downside is that one part of the bigger ward could dominate; the upside is you would have more reps who represent you -— without them representing everyone citywide and you getting lost in the shuffle."
---------------------------------------------------
(AN) - More representation is much needed in this mainly one-party city. The Strib editorials seem to point to that, not to mention our electoral make-up. So I'm tending to think that we actually need more CMs, not less. The city of Chicago actually has 50 Wards and 50 Alderman for each Ward. But I also think that 1 Ward-1 CM is a flawed winner-take-all electoral system that our democracy suffers badly under. So why not add some at-large CM's to the mix for that "city-wide perspective"? But will at-large membership provide more or less representation?
---------------------------------------------------
Darrell Gerber wrote:
"At large council elections by themselves will not increase the number or minorities but would most likely have the reverse effect. Numerous studies have shown that at-large districts lead to under representation of minority interests. This is the reasoning behind the Supreme Court rulings that at-large Congressional elections are discriminatory (except when a state has only one representative, of course). Anyone advocating for minority interests, be they racial or ideological, should reject at-large only representation schemes outright. The only way minority interests will be fairly represented under such a system is if it were coupled with some form of Proportional Representation."
---------------------------------------------------
(AN) - Weighing these concerns, we should be able to come up with A). More representation, and B.) More consideration for communities across Ward boundaries.
One possibility is ONE city-wide district and 10 CMs, elected through a Proportional Representation (PR) system fully funded by public financing. For example, all political parties get X amount to run candidates for City Council seats. On election day, if the DFL gets 50% of the votes, they get to elect five CMs to the Council. If Greens get 30%, they get three seats. If Independence and Republican parties each get 10%, then they each get one seat. This essentially moves the primaries to AFTER the general election, in which the individual campaigning gears up. In a perfect world these individuals would then be elected using IRV (Instant Run-Off Voting), and IRV eliminates the need for runoff elections by allowing voters to rank their candidates in order of preference and gives voters a wider range of choices within these "after-primary" elections. The downside is that citizens have to initially vote for political parties and not necessarily for individuals. But doesn't that already happen in the primaries now? And under the current system, often we're left with two choices after the primaries from candidates affiliated with the same party (as it happened in the last Ward 3 special election). The upside is that this would equal more representation that is actually reflective (proportional) of citizens' ideological/racial/economic concerns, and there would be consideration for communities all over Minneapolis. The downside is I'm not sure how this math breaks down when its not so neat (more parties, closer vote totals, etc).
Another possibility is Brauer's 4/3 idea. That's four wards/3 CMs each ward. Again, full public financing and IRV, but no PR and no at-large CMs. The top three vote getters get to go to City Hall, and those who voted for less popular candidates don't get to waste their vote as their second, third, etc. choice votes get reallocated through an instant run-off vote count. This would eliminate the need for a primary election, saving tax-payer money. The upside is more representation in each Ward. The downside is seemingly not as much consideration for communities across Ward boundaries. But isn't that what the Mayor is for?
And what about that pesky City Manager issue? Will having a City Manager help bridge the inevitable constituency gap that larger ward boundaries may bring? Or will he/she be an appointed King of Constituency Services while more power and important day-to-day citizen concerns get centralized and bureaucratic? The jury is still out on that one. I'd like to see some examples of how a City Manager does/doesn't work
Just a few possibilities. I'm sure there are several more will surface. Kudos to the Strib for bringing these issues forward, particularly the important aspect of electoral/charter reform. Shame on them for suggesting more centralized power, less representation and therefore less democracy for our fair city.
Aaron Neumann
Holland Neighborhood, NE 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
