Steve,
I believe I understand where you are aiming (however, feel free to correct me
publicly if I am wrong). Speaking for myself, I went to a caucus and got
selected to go to a convention and vote for who I wanted. There was 1) no
collective discussion as to how we as delegates could go out and garner input
from the ward masses that our individual precincts represent regarding the
candidates and the issues; 2) how we could then take the information we
garnered, come back together to discuss it and determine who we as a precinct
(representing our ward mass) should unanimously support; nor 3) how we then
(not before) could go to a ward convention and support/endorse a candidate
based on having a sense of what THE MASS CONSTITUENTS (whom the DFL likes to
say they truly represent) would want. If we adopted such an attitude, it could
help us to be more unified as a party, and shorten these marathon conventions.
By conducting ourselves in the manner suggested above, we would need to start
early. We could not have caucuses that met for about fifteen-twenty minutes
(like mine did), with a ward convention following on its heels shortly
afterwards. More thought would have to go into it. That means more effective
forums need be planned, for the current ones (IMHO) don't pass muster anymore.
There needs to be more emphasis placed on getting the masses to attend public
meetings where our elected politicians congregate and make decisions on our
behalf. In short, there is probably many other ways besides what I have
suggested here to make people stand up and take notice of the world around them
and encourage them to be a part of it.
It may cause candidates to think more deeply before putting themselves out
there, as they will be thoroughly looked at. It will place a greater
responsibility on us delegates to think beyond ourselves. It could be a step
in the right direction to garner the diversity of people and be inclusive of
their ideas in a party that is floundering for direction.
Pamela Taylor
(Ward 10)
Steve Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Barbara Lickness said:
>The number of delegates allowed to be elected at
>caucuses is determined by the voter turn-out.
>
What I have been talking about really doesn't deal with just the matter
of the total number of delegates. (Although, I admit to contributing to
that impression by saying that smaller conventions have merit.) My real
point is changing the fundamental nature of conventions from exercises
in self-selecting democracy to be republican (again, note the small
"r.") What I'm ultimately saying is that the precincts should elect a
few representatives to attend conventions rather than having the
conventions being composed of virtually anyone who wants to come. The
current procedure is not just a democracy (in the worst sense of that
word) by one composed of self-selected members as well.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
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
