[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, a lot of my neighbors share the same concerns, and those concerns vary from NEIGHBORHOOD to neighborhood. But just because folks share concerns does NOT mean that they share the same SOLUTIONS to those concerns. That's determined by ideology, education, life experience and often, political parties. Again, I want to state that NOT ONE of my elected officials, with the exception of my neighborhood organization representatives, actually live in my neighborhood (that we all so diligently sign with our names with at the end of every posting). That being said, I feel Samuels, my current CM as of now, does represent more of my values than the other choice I had after the primaries. The nice Republicans who live right next door to me feel that Valdis Rosenthal, who ran for that very CM seat, would have represented their values better. They became dis-engaged after the primaries, when we (Ward 3) were left to choose from two DFL-ers. PR allows SOLUTIONS to SHARED concerns to seriously be brought forward due to MORE representation. How is this a bad thing?I think thatthere are at least three more reasons to be opposed to PR:
1. In Minneapolis, people who live together tend to have the same
concerns, so representing them regionally makes sense. People who
live near Calhoun Square care about parking; people who live near
the lakes want them to stay nice. Other people have different
issues. People in some parts of the city are going to be
front-and-center worried about crime. Others are more likely to
be harmed by automobiles and think traffic enforcement is more
important, etc.
2. [I'm not so sure I know how I feel about this one] ProportionalYes, PR favors those who turn out for elections (a good thing). But even better than this, PR leads to MORE voter participation. Again, my Republican neighbors would have most likely stuck it out if they even had the chance of their values/ideology being represented at the municipal level. More voter participation is a GOOD thing!
representation, like at-large elections, favors people who turn
out for elections, over those who sit at home. Some people have
fussed about this in connection with at-large elections. On the
one hand, I think that this leaves some people unrepresented. On
the other hand, if you're just sitting home and watching TV,
you're gonna be unrepresented anyway --- you'll just have someone
who is labeled as your representative, but since they have no way
of knowing what you want them to do, how does this benefit you?
3. Proportional representation leads to gridlock, grotesqueAnd this analysis is based on what? Israel right now is actually side-stepping the "religious nutters", the settlers that you vehemently describe, BY building a coalition to withdraw from the West bank and parts of Gaza (sorry LM - couldn't let that comment go). There's a reason that new democracys such as South Africa (when Apartheid ended), Afghanistan, and now Iraq, among a variety of other advanced societies around the world (again, sorry LM - making the point that PR can work here too in our beloved city), are ALL using PR. It works and is the most fair! And lots of other municipalities RIGHT HERE IN THE U.S.A are using PR right now. For a fairly complete list, list, please visit:
allocations of pork, etc. No doubt this will be controversial.
However, I encourage you to consider, for example, politics in
Israel, where religious nutters get vast quantities of national
dollars, and paralyze vital policy issues, because they can make
or break coalitions. No thank you! The more I see of many-party
democracy, the more I think two-party isn't so bad... I wouldn't
mind seeing a couple of additional parties pop up with some
representation, but if we're going to end up with 10 or 12, I'd
rather have 2.
http://www.fairvote.org/pr/uslocalities.htm
Voting with some form of proportional representation - a system that makes sense for "non-partisan" elections - is simple and something worth seriously considering for bettering the electoral process here in Minneapolis, thereby creating a better Minneapolis for our future. YOU decide which candidates you would like to see elected and you rank those candidates in order of preference - knowing that a lower choice will never hurt the chances of a higher choice. That's it! Your vote will be counted toward the highest candidate on your ranked list who can be helped by your vote. As many people as mathematically possible will elect one person (and most voters will help elect one of their top two choices).
Until we have a better electoral system in place, I still contend that CM's Samuels, Johnson-Lee, Zimmerman, Lilligren, and Cam Gordon and Rybak, will need some form of coalition/cross endorsement of supporters to be elected to the Council/Mayor's seat. "Green-Labor-Progressive (GLP) endorsed" once again comes to mind.
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
