The issues mentioned below: Accountability. Representation.
Responsiveness. Citizen legislators. Short terms of service. Big money.
All occasioned by the question: How come our govt is so third rate?
Contrary to Kim Carlson, I think changing the system of elections IS the
way to make the change.
My preferred change is to Proportional Representation(PR) for the City
Council. With a common version of PR, it takes only about 7.5% of the vote
to win a seat. This has the following good effects:
1) The DFL is trimmed back from 12 seats to about 7-9, and none of them
are guaranteed (as today) to incumbents. This means accountability and
responsiveness - if you are scared you won't be re-elected, you will pay
much more attention to your voters. This is good. Nor will you be likely
to fork over huge chunks of cash to a stadium or Target if the voters know
they can and will boot you out for it.
DFL incumbents won't like this one, but, tough. They're part of the
problem -- almost all of the problem, as DFL domination for decades shows.
2) This leaves as many as 6 seats open for non-DFL. Some mix of GOP,
Green, Independent; say, 2 of each. This is good. The council then will be
a mirror of the population. More concerns and issues will be raised. More
diverse voices will be heard. More things will be done for most people
(and fewer things for the top 1% who now run the show). There will be more
committed and informed and widespread political debate (heaven for
political junkies like me). We will GROW UP as an electorate. More people
will vote - because they can vote for a party that represents them - and
win. Nothing stimulates interest like a chance to make things better.
The rich 1% won't like this one, but, tough. They're part of the problem
-- almost all of the problem, as big money domination for decades shows.
3) All seats - not just DFL seats - will be much less safe. Reps will come
and go more frequently and will hold a seat for many fewer years. It will
be easy for a party X member to challenge party X incumbents. No longer
will the young have to sit around for decades waiting for the incumbent to
die or retire, or him/herself move to another district. Ending incumbent
safety is GOOD. Why does Elmer Foof have to be reelected just because he
was elected last time?
Ending safe seats will go a long way to eliminating arrogance. Treat us
like dirt and - whoosh! - gone next election. We can expect a lot more
humility, helpfulness, aid, listening, responsiveness, honor.
A good system, good consequences, you say, but how to get it?-- The
arrogant drones in office won't vote for it.
Well, we can force the issue. We vote third party; this scares the DFL
into pushing for a system (IRV) that winds up giving second choice votes
to DFLers. It's already happening in various places in America where the
third parties are strong. A large and continuing third party vote is
ESSENTIAL - without it, same old same old.
Once we have IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) then it's on to PR, like IRV but
for multiple member districts. After IRV takes hold, PR will seem as
familiar and good as home, mom, and apple pie.
--David Shove
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Kim Carlson wrote:
> Let me continue if I can...Accountability seems to be the issue in the
> discussions. As well I've caught hold of the concern for representation
> especially for those groups that don't currently have such in the face of
> numerous City problems...
>
> Representation is an issue I need to continue to think about...however,
> accountability is a good question...how do we do that...?
>
> I liked J.Burns question about why do we continue to elect people who don't
> respond? That certainly isn't a total structure problem but one of interest
> and obligation on the part of the City residents. No one on this list could
> be accused of non-interest but what can we do to get others involved? Why
> do we accept and support people who are not living up to our goals of
> accountability and representation. I fear the answers to these issues are
> far greater than changing the system of elections.
>
> There has been much discussion of the "big money" in campaigns...but I look
> at my neighborhood, friends and associates and can say that I doubt any of
> them participate financially with local candidates. Yet we discuss nothing
> but the problems of the City and how to solve them...
>
> The so called "big money" would be less influential if more people gave what
> they can from the local arena...but it is back to how we influence and
> educate others to participate?
>
> Of more concern to me than the money involved in politics (don't mistake
> that I share numerous concerns about this issue which I'll address as I get
> more guts to write in) is the issue of balance. Balance about which elected
> officials we let get by with doing minimal work, yet the political power to
> stay in office. Does money impact some of that yes...but it isn't the whole
> "ball of wax"...Don't we have to admit that part of the problem is simple
> complacency...? How do we change that...?
>
> Another issue that impacts the process of balance (I think I believe this I
> have to admit I struggle with this issue...) that we need to elect and
> promote people of a higher caliber to run for office. That is hard to do
> for many reasons. The negative, nasty, and personal nature of a campaign is
> not very attractive. Then hold on to your seats (here's the tough
> part...)...it doesn't pay very much if you have the credentials to run a
> budget the size of Minneapolis!
>
> I know many good people who would be very interested in running for office
> and can commit that they would do so for only a short period of time. They
> would do so as public service, and use this opportunity to service their
> community and have this be a part of their career development or concluding
> career "pay-back". But how do they afford to do so..?
>
> I know the public has great disgust for that attitude but it is at least a
> discussion for review...
>
> It has certainly been my experience to a large extent (but only one person)
> that non-responsiveness is due to burn-out. Elected officials don't leave
> office too frequently because they don't know where they go next and have
> the same job benefits and pay. This is the best they'll have in their
> minds...we could all name examples from the past whereby we know that this
> is true...
>
> But we continue to elect them! And we do because no one will run...
>
> This is an exciting election year. But the only one in many many
> years...Understand that I do not yet support anyone in any race...however I
> truly look forward to the debate...! Let's all try to get our neighbors and
> friends and even associates involved...not only to vote but to work for the
> candidates they choose and to contribute even a small amount of money...the
> system needs it and until that changes let's not pretend it doesn't
> matter...convince your neighbors...
>
> Because I'm a little nervous doing for the first time I hope to be more
> articulate in the future...I appreciate your patience and I truly look
> forward to continued discussions on this issue. The list has many
> insightful and interesting opinions...Thanks for letting me be a part!!
>
> I'm Learning a lot from YOU!!
> Kim Carlson
> Bottineau
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: j burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Annie Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 9:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mpls] Number of councilmembers
>
>
> >Good Morning...Let me introduce myself to list participants because I've
> >never written before. My name is Kim Carlson, I live in Bottineau in
> >glorious Northeast! I work as a consultant and sometimes lobbyist, I've
> >been very active in every neighborhood I've lived in Minneapolis and I at
> >one time worked as an aide to a Minneapolis City Council Member. In
> >addition I've worked for a Senator in Washington, and volunteered to do
> >non-paid, non-formal work at the State Legislature. I used to be (long
> ago)
> >very active in party politics but have not done so for years...
> >
> >I find the discussion regarding the Council and appropriate responsiveness
> >very compelling. However, I 'll admit readily I'm no expert but can bring
> a
> >little different
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: j burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 9:41 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Mpls] Number of councilmembers
> >
> >
> >>I've been viewing this list for quite some time and am puzzled by the
> "weak
> >>mayor system" reference. Has anyone considered the possibility that,
> >>currently, Minneapolis may indeed just have a WEAK MAYOR? One who's
> >>invisible until there's an election in her midst? I remember at the start
> >of
> >>her first term how she swore she'd never move out of her ward. A few
> months
> >>later, it was "hello Edmund Blvd". Her supporters lamented how her "little
> >>tiny house just wasn't adequate". Poor thing. A lot of the citizens in
> this
> >>city don't have a choice! And that little property tax fiasco at her lake
> >>home? It was shrugged off, by her darling husband in the Sayles Belton
> >>Tribune as a simple little accounting error. Aww...
> >>
> >>I must say, after viewing the comments on this forum, that most
> >>Minneapolitans don't feel she's measured up. I was puzzled why she was
> >>elected to a second term, and equally floored when I heard she's got the
> >>huttspa to seek a third. If the citizens of Minneapolis are frustrated
> with
> >>her performance, then WHO pray tell is the voting majority that keeps
> >>electing her?
> >>JBurns
> >>Cleveland
> >>
> >>
> >>>From: Annie Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>Subject: Re: [Mpls] Number of councilmembers
> >>>Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:37:15 -0600
> >>>
> >>>I am not sure there is a right or wrong answer to the question about
> >>>restructuring the council until it is actually tried. HIstorically,
> there
> >>>were days when there were 26 councilmembers and other configurations
> which
> >>>I am not sure about.
> >>>My issue with citywide members (for any of the Boards) is about Equity
> and
> >>>balance. I believe the weak mayor system in Minneapolis leaves the Mayor
> >>>out there all alone trying to balance the needs of the entire city. When
> >>>working within the Council member fiefdom as it operates today it is
> >>>extremely difficult for the Mayor to portray and bully pulpit for the
> >large
> >>>city wide vision including the wants and needs of the entire city.
> >>>On both the city council and the Park Board, members generally follow the
> >>>wishes and position of the ward/district member and everyone else stays
> >out
> >>>of the fray. The advantage of the city wide member is that they can also
> >>>be part of that district/ward dialogue and weigh in with support, choice
> >of
> >>>thinking and assessment of the needs in that particular district/ward.
> >>>When attending National League of Cities and visting with councilpeople
> >>>from all over the country... many, many, many of them are elected at
> >large.
> >>>IMHO it really does even the playing field in thinking about the overal
> >>>needs of the city.
> >>>Yes, it is more expensive and harder to run city-wide but it does give
> the
> >>>citizen some options in garnering support for their projects and
> >>>activities. And I stated earlier the at large city wide perspective helps
> >>>to insure equity and balance on issues for the entire city.
> >>>However, it doesn't sound like anyone has a grand scheme to take some
> >>>wording and the concept before the charter commission in the next couple
> >of
> >>>months.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>At 09:56 AM 2/14/01 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> >Having at-large Council Members will not necessarily make "your"
> >>>designated
> >>> > Those who are going to work at the job are going to work
> >>> > What it really
> >>> >comes down to is people making the commitment to public service and not
> >>>just
> >>> > Those who are truly committed are most likely to be the
> >>> > Having at-large, in my opinion, will not solve any
> >>> > In fact, I think it's a mistake for the Park Board to have
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > With the population of
> >>> >Mpls being what it is, it would seem to me the number could be
> reduced -
> >>> > In the "old" days, CMs
> >>> > That position didn't evolve until the late 70s,
> >>> > Most of the Assistants do the majority of the constituent service and
> >>> > The balance of the CM
> >>> > The whole
> >>> >structure needs to be re-examined.
> >>> >
> >>> >Karen Collier
> >>> >Linden Hills
> >>>Annie Young
> >>>Ward 6 - East Phillips in Minneapolis
> >>>Citywide at-large Park Board Commissioner
> >>>Working to build a sustainable community
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> >>>Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> >>>http://e-democracy.org/mpls
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> >>Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> >>http://e-democracy.org/mpls
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
