-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Greene Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:16 PM Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Mpls] RE: Stadia
Anderson & Turpin (that's me) wrote: > Continuously for the last ten years, it seems that a majority of the > politicians in the state want the public to build a stadium, even as the > majority of voters have felt otherwise. This is even politicians that we've > voted for partially because of their positions not to build these edifices, > such as Rybak. I've been trying to figure this out, and the only thing I > can come up with is that the stadium is more valuable to the big shots than > it is to the rest of us. David Greene replied: So the question, of course, is, "why do you keep voting for them?" Is it possible that other issues are more important to most citizens than the stadium, to the degree that they'll vote for pro-stadium legislators because of a stand on a more important issue? This is healthy politics, not a power grab. If everyone is so against a stadium, I haven't seen it at the polls. Mark Anderson replies back: Well, it's hard not to vote for them when they change their minds after the election. As I stated above, I believe Rybak was elected partially because he seemed to be against spending taxpayer dollars on large projects that only had indirect benefits to the people in the city. It was SSB's support for many of these projects that led to the end of her regime. So we DID vote against them, but it didn't seem to have any effect. I don't know how you missed this. It seems that once a politician is elected, he/she sees that it is in his/her interest to support a stadium, so his or her mind changes. Of course there is also the fact that running the city involves much more than opining on a stadium, so voters will consider many other issues than the stadium, just as you suggested. If the voters agree with one candidate on 5 out of 10 issues, and another one on 7 out of 10 issues, presumably they'll vote for the latter, even though the elected candidate will act against the majority in 3 out of 10 cases. Another good reason to have initiative and referendum -- it allows the majority of people to be in charge more often than does a strictly representative one. I think we should maximize the number of people who agree with the government's actions. The stadium issue is just the most obvious case where the people's wishes are ignored. Mark V Anderson Bancroft 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
