David Shove: With PR in Mpls and 13 seats to fill, 1/13 of the total vote would elect your choice. 1/13 = about 7.5%.
With only 10 seats, 1/10, or 10% would be required. I prefer the lower threshold/greater diversity of 1/13 over the higher threshold/lower diversity of 1/10. Under the kind of PR I like (STV), you can declare a perty, OR any issue you like as your party name. Thus there could be a "North Mpls" label, to counter the feared dominance of white bourgeois from SW. Or a "Labor" label. Or any other - the voters would winnow out the ones they did/didn't want, without "wasting" a vote. In a few elections we'd come to see what issues/parties REALLY move people here - and govt would (have to) be much more responsive to exactly that. Aaron Neuman's response to my question about RP providing for geographic representation: If it's one, and only one, Mpls Ward for all of > Mpls, then the council represents the entire city, much like the Mayor. > If the concern is that some areas would not be represented due to the > possibility of some CMs not living in every neighborhood (which is also > true now) and therefore some geographical areas may not be provided with > as good as city services/representation, then that's noted, but I'm not > sure that would be the case. Policy setting affects the entire city as > is, and, in my opinion, that's what a city council is for. It's not so > much about geographical representation as it is about just plain old > fashion representation of views, concerns, ideas, etc. > > I don't really think that geographical representation has a lot of > weight behind it. Jeanne Massey responds: I'm not convinced that geographic representation in a proportional representation (PR) election model doesn't have much weight behind it, because the city is so geographically divided by race, ethnicity and income (and voting turnout is lower in poorer areas of the city). I understand that most PR systems are party based and that PR has a track record of assuring better representation by minority communities without necessarily being geographically based, but a single district model doesn't GUARANTEE it would happen and, as such, certain geographic areas could be marginalized in the process. In order to ensure balanced geographical representation in a PR system, such as the STV (single transferable vote) approach David Shove outlines (which is like IRV/PR combined as you rank your choices within the multi-candidate district), you could create smaller geographic based districts (e.g., 3 or 4) WITHIN Minneapolis, as opposed to one SINGLE district for the entire city. Each smaller district would have a smaller number of elected members (e.g. 3 or 4), as opposed to up 10 - 13 members in one single district as Shove prescribes above. While geographic representation may create redundancy in focus on certain issues, I don't see that as a problem and I would like to see a system that minimizes disenfranchisement of representation from poorer (usually non-majority white) areas of the city. PR is a superior system of representation than the simpler IRV election model as it allows for multiple winners per district (representing various perspectives in "proportion" to the votes they get, assuring majority rule AND minority representation), rather than one winner as the IRV model would allow (but IRV is a great first step towards PR.) For a good reviews of how PR works (in its various modes) see http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm http://ed.labonte.com/pr.html. The benefits of PR outlined in this second piece include: There is much greater voter participation. In countries using PR, voter turnout is usually in the 70% to 95% range. Campaigns tend to be issue oriented rather than popularity contests. Because American society is so diverse, it is difficult to find issues that will guarantee majority support. Instead, campaign managers fight to attract swing voters who are not attracted to either candidate. They have discovered the most effective way to do this is by smearing the opponent. Swing voters are more influenced by negative campaigns because they are unattracted to the positive positions of either candidate. Under PR, however, a majority is not required to get elected. Instead politicians run campaigns directed at a particular constituency and the most effective campaigns are issue oriented. Minorities and woman get much greater representation under proportional representation. Women in countries using PR generally comprise somewhere in the range of 25% - 35% of elected officials, as opposed to less than 5% here in the U.S. PR has been used in Voting Rights Act cases where it has been shown that gerrymandered districts or the use of at-large representation has denied minorities fair representation. PR has proven to be an effective way of ensuring minority representation in Alamogordo, NM and Peoria, IL. Blacks have been continuously represented on the city council and school committee of Cambridge, MA since it instituted its version of PR in 1941. There is a much greater selection under proportional representation. Americans come in more than two flavors. There is no way that two political parties can represent the diversity of opinion that exists in this country. Under PR the size of the vote determines the size of the representation, but everyone gets represented. 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
