[Mpls] My rationale for the city constitutional change

[David Brauer]

Responding to Earl's concerns:

> Separate city caucuses could in practice become even more vulnerable=20=

> to an
> elitism charge.  These city caucuses are likely to be sparsely=20
> attended, and
> in essence will serve most of the time as an insiders game, while=20
> always
> being vulnerable to take over by and/or undue influence by organized=20=

> local
> interests.  (And these need not always be principled progressives,=20
> some may
> remember the T Party.) Normally only those Democrats with an active=20
> interest in municipal affairs can be expected to attend.

Earl, this is true under either system. We will have ward and city=20
conventions under the old or new system. The only folks who show up are=20=

  "Democrats with an active interest in municipal affairs" in either=20
case.

The DIFFERENCE that under the old system, the 2005 participation pool=20
is limited to "those Democrats with an active interest in municipal=20
affairs" chosen in 2004. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is eligible to=20
participate in 2005 - PLUS new people activated by city issues, or new=20=

issues.

If you fear special interests, really, you should not favor caucuses. I=20=

personally favor a more open caucus process as the best of all worlds.

>   While unintended, those Democrats primarily
> interested in international issues, war and peace, human rights, or=20
> state
> and metropolitan issues will become disenfranchised.  Similar to how
> advocates of those issues are restricted from the Minneapolis Issues=20=

> List
> internet discussion group.

First, the analogy is flawed because while the Issues list has rules=20
about topic scope, the DFL does not.

But in any event, the concern seems to me a piffle.

No matter which system we use, the delegates who show up for city=20
endorsements do so because they are interested in city issues. I=20
regularly attended precinct caucuses and city-year conventions under=20
the old system and TONS of delegates dropped out because they only=20
cared about national or state stuff. Their choice - but the old system=20=

resulted in declining attendance, too.

Since we're going to keep endorsing in city years,  why not let more=20
people in?

Earl's point about the representativeness of delegates might make some=20=

sense if caucusgoers actually made a choice among possible delegates.=20
But they don't, as he acknowledges later in a different context:

> ... while we had a record turnout we
> still did not fill the alternate roles in many precincts.

Practically, this means broadly representative caucusgoers don't choose=20=

broadly representative delegate =97 delegates select themselves. Even in=20=

high-turnout presidential years like the one just passed.

Since we're going to let anyone who wants to be a delegate be one, why=20=

not allow more people to do so in 2005? The 2004 self-nominees are in=20
either way.

>  They may also be interested in municipal
> affairs, but at some threshold, many will balk at attending a second=20=

> round
> of caucuses to ensure that their voice is heard. (or participating on =
a
> second list)

This is a legitimate concern that I believe wise party leaders can=20
ameliorate.

Bear with me for a bit longer here:

We have 2005 ward and city conventions under either system. All the new=20=

system does is add precinct caucuses.

My proposal is to hold the precinct caucuses and ward conventions the=20
same day, in the same place. Let the candidates address precinct=20
delegates en mass like they have done at ward conventions.

Essentially, all you add is a brief round of self-selection. All=20
precinct attendees who want to be ward delegates likely will be. They=20
merely step forward, names are taken, and we're even with the old=20
system - only with much fuller delegate rolls.

> Rather than seeking to divide itself, our party has for over 50 years=20=

> sought
> to unify itself by addressing issues on all levels.  By developing=20
> policies
> and platforms that transcend individual levels of government.  We seek=20=

> to
> elect a cadre of competent officials on all levels capable of working
> together. Many in our party believe it's alright for a city council
> candidate to be asked about their position on abortion or free trade,=20=

> etc.,
> whether or not it is a city issue.

Nothing stopping you from doing that under either system. In fact, you=20=

can get like-minded neighbors to the city-year caucuses and amplify=20
your voice.

If you're outnumbered, that's democracy - but the more the merrier.

> Our party has traditionally scheduled its caucuses around the=20
> Presidential
> and Statewide election years, for a reason.  They draw more people. =20=

> They
> broaden our base.  It's clear to me, that next years city caucuses=20
> will have
> a tiny fraction of the turnout we enjoyed this past year.

Beating my dead horse: if there's a small turnout in city years, its=20
not because of the new system. Any 2004 delegate motivated to show up=20
in 2005 will under either system =97 and new people can, too.

> While the proponents of the new caucuses will cringe to hear me say=20
> so, the
> requirement of second caucus next spring constitutes an unintended=20
> form of
> poll tax.

the cringe is because the analogy is inflammatory and flawed  (the poll=20=

tax being a financial disincentive to restrict poor blacks, compared to=20=

what is at worst a bit more time.)

But I know what Earl means - adding time to the ward conventions may=20
discourage some. As I've noted above, the increased time is probably=20
very small and the participation has a much greater chance of going up.

>  If you are a Democrat and wish to participate in all levels of
> Democratic policy making you now have to attend not one caucus every=20=

> other
> year, but two to be eligible to participate at the national and the=20
> local
> level.

This is misleading. Again, we have ward and city conventions under=20
either system. Under either system, you had to attend a=20
presidential-year DFL gathering and a city-year one. The only=20
difference is (likely) pro-forma precinct caucuses to funnel more=20
attendees into the ward conventions.

> Pity the poor candidates
> seeking school board endorsement Saturday.  There was no way they =
could
> campaign effectively person to person to explain their positions and=20=

> even
> more importantly to hear from us the delegates what we thought and =
were
> concerned with regarding our hugely important schools.  In contrast,=20=

> when we
> return to the traditional caucus system both incumbents and=20
> challengers for
> city office next year will have the luxury of knowing who the=20
> delegates will
> be.

What you view as a virtue is what got me to organize a change. It's=20
easier to  speak to a closed list. But you don't win elections from=20
closed lists. You don't win elections excluding good DFLers who want to=20=

vote on endorsements but weren't savvy enough to know they had to show=20=

up LAST YEAR to help endorse.

And you darn sure shouldn't exclude a bunch of good DFLers who maybe=20
only realized what's at stake when a city issue crystalized AFTER the=20
presidential caucuses (think those whose schools are being closed - or=20=

those who think they should have been).

> I admit another problem, but believe it to be minor.  I have been told=20=

> that
> a few might have been or would have been delegates did not become=20
> delegates
> in order to allow new people to become involved. That may be.  But I=20=

> doubt
> that there could have been that many, since while we had a record=20
> turnout we
> still did not fill the alternate roles in many precincts.

I agree with the limited point. I think there are additional people who=20=

chose not to participate this year merely because they care more about=20=

next year's races.

>   I suggest the
> disenfranchisement of thousands of delegates this past year is more=20
> onerous
> that the disenfranchisement of a handful of delegates who decided to=20=

> skip
> this years district and city convention.

As I've argued repeatedly, no one who participated this year is=20
disenfranchised. And lots of other people will be enfranchised.

David Brauer
Kingfield=