Tamir Nolley writes: This leads to PR. Forgetting that city elections are supposed to be non-partisan in the first place, proportional representation does address having the views of the political minority being represented. However, not every political party uses a democratic process to elect it's candidates in all situations. So the first problem with PR, that potentially you could have an office holder who sits in office solely because the party who won a certain percent of the vote chose that person. This person did not face ANY sort of democratic popular election. I believe every office holder should be accountable to public scrutiny and therefore face a popular election. (snip) The second problem, which I believe is more disturbing is that this essentially closes the door to non-affiliated independents, who might make great public officials but don't entirely buy in to ANY party ideology. I think we could use a few independents (and I'm not talking aout the Republicans who run as independents) in our city offices, especially on the School Board. PR addresses many issues that need to be addressed, but serving in public office should be open to EVERYONE, not just people who have a few important connections and can raise the most money. This doesn't mean I'm closed to the idea of PR in Minneapolis, but these concerns would have to be sufficently addressed before I could support it.
Response: The concerns Tamir Nolley raises about RP relate to the Party List approach, in which each party puts forward a slate of candidates equal to the number of seats in the district. On the ballot, voters indicate their preference for a single party and the parties then receive seats in proportion to their share of votes. The STV (single transferable vote) approach, also referred to as choice vote or ranked voting, eliminates the partisan related concerns because it can be used for non partisan elections. STV is like IRV in that voters rank their choices, but, unlike IRV which is used in single member districts, STV is used in multiple member districts. The larger the number of seats in the district, the more proportional the results will be and the greater the potential for diverse representation. STV or choice voting is designed to minimize wasted votes and is the best system to assure that most voters contribute to the election of a candidate. In non partisan STV election, voters would cast their ballots directly for candidates, based on political philosophy, positions on issues, ethnic or gender identity, where they live, or other criteria. In previous postings I argued for the need for geographic-based districts within Minneapolis to ensure representation from all parts of the city, but the problem with this is that it would reduce the diversity of representation overall as you would only elect 3 or 4 candidates within each district, most likely with similar representation from each group (the largest win). It's not clear to me how to GUARANTEE equal participation of currently underrepresented parts of the city in a PR system, but - as other list members have suggested and studies show - the chances of currently underrepresented groups (geographical or political) running for and winning office, and the chances of increasing voter turnout, are vastly improved in the STV system compared to the current winner-take-all system. Jeanne Massey 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
