> David Greene: > So the next question is, "how will you hold RT accountable?" > > Mark Anderson again: > Real good question David. You're the one who thinks that representative > system can give us what we want, so I'd like to get your answer. Rybak is > apparently now in favor of public financing of the stadium, and maybe not as > opposed to other similar projects as he made it appear in his first > campaign. His main competitor actually voted for the stadium financing and > has generally made a career of supporting such boondoggles. The dark horses > are not acceptable because of other issues (at least that's my > understanding, I'd be glad to vote for a dark horse, but my favored > candidate has never won in this city). So how do you hold a candidate > responsible for broken promises (or at least broken implications), when all > the other choices are worse?
<snip> David Greene response: But of course this is your decision. Politics is a complex business. No one ever gets everything one wants. We're founded on a system of compromise. Mark Anderson latest response: I agree that there is no way to eliminate compromise in a democratic system. But what we have been discussing isn't about compromise. It's about voting for a person and hoping that the person acts like he says he will. If not, then after four years of damage one may be able to vote the person out, if the other choices aren't even worse. That's what it means to have a pure representational government. I even agree that representational government is a necessary evil. Our system is too complicated to vote directly on anything but the biggest issues. But it sure would be nice to get the true voice of the people on those issues, instead of the highly filtered voice of the people through their elected representatives. The stadium is such a great example of that because it's so easy to see that the representatives don't agree with the people as a whole. I think this difference happens a lot of the time. Every time it does, it diminishes the democratic nature of our society. > Mark Anderson: > I agree that I & R are definitely unwieldy. They can only be used for major > issues; and only for those issues that can be answered with a yes or no > answer (but now that I think about it, a multiple choice referendum might > work, even though I've never seen it tried). Public stadium financing is a > perfect example of a question suitable for I & R. Initiative should be made David Greene: Why is this the perfect issue? Mark Anderson latest response: Because it is a straightforward yes-no question; they either do the project or they don't. Because the proposal includes both funding and spending, so a "no" vote doesn't cause a either deficit or a surplus. Because it is very easy to understand what the question is, which is not the case for many projects the government works on. And because there is a clear difference between the politicians and the people, so it would be a clear gain for democracy. David Greene: ...you would support Pawlenty's and Krinkie's "turbocharged truth in taxation?" Mark Anderson latest response: Yes I do support that measure, but not for the same reason as I do I & R. Pawlenty and Krinkie's measure supports taxpayers' rights, but I & R is about voters' rights. Mark Anderson: > The complexity of issues is a poor reason not to have I & R. Life is > complex, but we still expect everyone to be allowed to make their own > decisions. David Greene: Apples and Oranges. We don't set statewide budgets in our everyday experience. Mark Anderson latest response: I never suggested that we have referendums to set statewide budgets. What I'd like to see is the ability to put particular state or city actions on the ballot if a certain percentage of registered voters sign an initiative requesting this. I don't see how you could do that with the whole budget. But it would work well with specific projects, such as the stadium. There have been comments on this List several times that "we are the government." I think that's unrealistic utopian thinking and we are a long way from achieving that, but I do think it's a real good idea to try to advance in that direction. People have the right to spend their money the way the want to, and that includes the collective funds spent by the government. I & R improves the connection between the government and the will of the people. There are many examples of actions people don't do every day, but we still believe they have the right to do so. How often does an individual buy a house, choose a college, or decide to have children? One could argue that a government agency could make better choices than most folks about these rare decisions. But most of us feel that we all have the right to make our own bad decisions. I don't understand why government "of the people" should be any different. Mark Anderson: > Should people be forced to go into professions determined by the > state, because it is too complex for the average person to make the correct > choice? I assume your answer would be no, because individual freedom is > more important than the possibility of making a mistake? For the same > reason, people have the right to make the policy decisions for their own > government. There is nothing stopping people from voting in a referendum > based on what the experts say who have studied the issues in depth, such as > in your example with public transportation. David Greene: Money drives referendums, plain and simple. Suppose public transportation funding was put up for a vote. The MN Chamber would have no problem pouring millions of dollars into a campaign to stop a sales tax increase, all the way misleading people about how they'd lose their jobs if it went through. Mark Anderson latest response: That's a myth spread by the losers of referendums. I've never seen any evidence that money drives referendums any more than campaigns for government representatives. Usually I've heard stories about how big-money interests have controlled the results of referendums in California and Colorado. I am not very familiar with those campaigns, because I don't live there. But every referendum I've seen in Minnesota seems to be determined by the how the people think about the issue, not at the amount of money spent. When a lot of money is spent on a particular referendum, there seems be lots of cash spent by both sides. Can you name a single referendum in Minnesota in which the money spent changed the outcome? I can't. But it's easy to find an example of where elected representatives haven't followed the will of the people. Publicly financing various stadiums, again and again, over the last ten years. In this case, nothing ever has come of these legislative actions (until now), only because of the screeching and the obvious overwhelming disagreement of the people. I & R doesn't require such overwhelming disagreement. A simple majority could start or stop an action. That's how it should be. David Greene: There's also the question of timing. We need public transportation funding TODAY. We cannot wait until 2007. Cuts are already planned. Would you require a referendum for a sales tax dedicated to public transportation? Mark Anderson latest response: I don't know why the referendum would have to wait until 2007. Why isn't November 2005 suitable? In any case, I haven't noticed our representatives moving any quicker. At least a referendum would result in a definitive result, instead of the usual stalemates we get out of St Paul. I think a referendum is already required for any local option sales tax, although easily overridden by the state. I kind of like that requirement, except that it not be so easy to change by the folks at the Capitol. David Greene: As we've seen, a statutory requirement for referendum can be easily bypassed at the legislature. If we really think I&R is a good idea, let's write it into the constitution and answer all these questions definitively. Mark Anderson latest response: I can't disagree with you that putting it in the constitution would be a good idea. Otherwise it will always be too easy for representatives to avoid the people's voice. But since there already is a requirement in the law for a referendum for the stadium project, I think our legislators should respect that unless they give a good reason not to. 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
