Tamir Nolley wrote: Almost everyone seems to have forgotten that Don Samuels has praised Natalie Johnson-Lee several times, promised NOT to challenge Natalie Johnson-Lee and promised to move in to the new third ward during his initial campaign. Few people mention, or perhaps don't notice that he seems to have changed his mind for political convenience. ....and when talking about the council races we only focus on the DFL. We sort of don't talk about how the 5th and 6th ward incumbants are Green (I think Natalie Johnson-Lee is one of the best council members this city has ever seen and will probably be re-elected, hence my venting in the above paragraph) and that there will be more than one political party running candidates, and more than one political party represented on the city council. I think a Green or an independent also has a good chance of winning the 8th and 3rd ward seats. I'm not one of those people who buy in to the mythology of the "DFL Machine," but from what I've heard from many of those who went to the local DFL to support Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich and were systematically kept out of the process, the DFL is NOT the place to inact political change. The vicious partisanship of some DFLers toward elected officials who share many of their values but aren't elected within the DFL process (ie. the Delay like redistricting fiasco which was so obviously directed at Green Council Members) is somewhat baffling to me.
I urge everyone to take an open minded and objective look at the Green, IP and independent candidates as well as DFL candidates. You might find that you agree more with the other parties. I'm convinced that Minneapolis can only benifit from their greater participation. Me: Electing council members through a proportional representation (PR) system would eliminate the concerns Tamir Nolley raises. Assuming that Minneapolis were a single district, the council could be elected through the STV (single transferable vote) PR approach, also referred to as choice vote or ranked voting. It would eliminate the partisan related concerns because it could be used for non partisan elections as Minneapolis has (in theory). STV is like IRV in that voters rank their choices, but, unlike IRV which is used in single member multiple districts, STV is used in multiple member single 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. With a single multiple-seat district in Minneapolis, STV would eliminate district-based representation and the effects of being "out districted". The whole debate of where Zimmerman runs would be mute. 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. 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 PR system compared to the current winner-take-all system. If STV PR is too big of a change to move to at once, than then simpler IRV (I prefer the term ranked choice voting or RCV as used in San Francisco) would improve the election process itself. It would or could eliminate the need for party endorsements (in our theoretic nonpartisan races). It would eliminate all together the need for primaries, which are expensive - and more importantly - have low voter turnout. It would increase voter convenience as there would be just one election to become educated about and vote in. Consequently, voter turnout in general elections would increase (which should be a key goal given the low turn out for municipal elections as seen below). It would ensure majority support for the winning candidate (a concern in races with multiple parties running, such as the last gubernatorial race in which our current governor won with less than majority support). It would eliminate the spoiler vote problem and allow voters to vote their choice candidate(s) in ranked order. It would decrease negative campaigning as candidates attempt to gain voter support, if not as first choice than as 2nd or 3rd choice. It would indicate voter support for minority platforms. The benefit of eliminating primaries using in an IRV system deserves additional attention. I looked up turnout rates in Minneapolis municipal primary and general elections (found on the city's web site) and found that in 1997, average turnout in municipal primary elections was about 18% and 47% in the general election. In 2001, average turnout in the primaries was 27% and 41% in the general election. Does anyone think that a good and working electoral system for our municipality is one in which a quarter or less than our electing population is, in great part, deciding who represents the remaining three quarters or more of the population? San Francisco implemented IRV this past election for its Board of Supervisors (equivalent to our city council), which is composed of single representatives from multiple districts as is the Minneapolis city council. Similar to San Francisco, Minneapolis has a two step election process - a primary and general election. San Francisco has a general election and run-off election for local office. Both have the same problem, but in reverse. In San Francisco IRV solves the problem of expensive and low voter turnout run-off elections. In Minneapolis, it would solve the problem of expensive and low voter turnout in primaries. PR, in my view, 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.) But, short of reorganizing the city into one large district (it could be more than one) for the purpose of PR, the use of IRV for a single seat multiple district system such as we have could be a significant improvement over the current system. Jeanne Massey Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
