Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Elections - City Councils and Commissions - Policies
twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 5856
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby twincitizen » April 27th, 2017, 12:58 pm

I think we can all agree that both RCV (no primary) and "Top 2" nonpartisan/"jungle" primaries are WAAAAY better than the current system we have for state and national partisan elections (first past the post, choosing the lesser of evils, reluctance to support 3rd party candidates, etc.) We need to kill the "first past the post" election system and either go with RCV or "Top 2" for all elections.

The questions that remain are which one is better (or has the least flaws), which one is more efficient, which one is better understood by the public, and which one is easier to sell to the public (or less controversial). One of the theories behind ranked choice is that it's cheaper for taxpayers, but I'm not sure that has been proven. With "Top 2" you still have to run a primary (assuming more than 2 file), but in many elections you could also skip the general/"runoff" election if a candidate reaches 50% in the primary. If we were going to go with a single system for all US elections, I'd pick "Top 2" as the one that could be more easily sold to the public and less controversial.

In partisan elections, this could possibly have the effect of electing more moderates/centrists. In very left-leaning or very right-leaning districts (of which there are many), it is quite likely that two Democrats or two Republicans would finish as the "Top 2" in the primary and advance to the general. Voters of the party which has no candidate in the general election would be likely to vote for the more "centrist" candidate of the other party, hopefully leading to fewer extremists in Congress and state legislatures.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3091
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby Anondson » May 9th, 2017, 7:00 am

Forest Lake voted to disband their police and contract with Washington County sheriff's department for law enforcement services to save money.

http://www.startribune.com/forest-lake- ... 421693743/

A city of 18,000 and a petition from residents signed by 6,000? That's a huge number for the city council to ignore.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7368
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby mattaudio » May 9th, 2017, 7:46 am

I had a few friends posting about this on Facebook last night who live in or grew up in that town. It sounds like the root of this is likely a personal dispute between an elected official and one or more people in the P.D.

mamundsen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 912
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby mamundsen » May 9th, 2017, 7:41 pm

I read about FLPD... article said that the expectations and budget for the PD was growing astronomically and the argument for going to the County was better service. But then I read about stories where a city is under county service and they have ZERO officers assigned. I don't get it. There has to be some happy medium. How do the local small cities make it work with combined forces? Would we be better if all these critical services were done on a county level?

LakeCharles
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 737
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby LakeCharles » May 10th, 2017, 7:11 am

Arden Hills, Gem Lake, Little Canada, North Oaks, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, and White Bear Township all contract with Ramsey County. They have zero assigned officers. Seems to work okay.

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3091
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby Anondson » July 4th, 2017, 10:29 am

Shakopee rising up the ranks to challenge Lake Elmo in shenanigans.

http://www.startribune.com/shakopee-str ... 432372843/

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3091
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby Anondson » September 13th, 2017, 2:36 pm

Shakopee definitely achieving Lake Elmo levels. Well done.

http://www.startribune.com/shakopee-cit ... 444262883/

User avatar
Anondson
Capella Tower
Posts: 3091
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby Anondson » October 6th, 2017, 10:12 am

Luckily it’s just a candidate forum, but this deserves to add my beloved Hopkins to the thread.

http://www.citypages.com/news/hopkins-m ... /449735583

Korh
City Center
Posts: 41
Joined: March 8th, 2017, 10:21 pm

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby Korh » October 9th, 2017, 9:24 am

Given how poorly he did in the last mayor election getting less votes than then the number of write-ins, I have a strong suspicion that most of them where for the old mayor Eugene "Gene" Maxwell as a desperate attempt to get him out of retirement.

mamundsen
Foshay Tower
Posts: 912
Joined: November 15th, 2012, 10:01 am

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby mamundsen » November 6th, 2017, 8:01 pm

Help! Can someone suggest a good path to rebut the below opinion piece posted in the Press Pub? It was written by Rep. Linda Runbeck (R, Circle Pines) and I find it terrible to have inaccurate info posted to the paper.

http://www.presspubs.com/shoreview/opin ... f5a71.html

Her views are anti transit. I believe she voted to defund Metro Transit.

Her bio: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/member ... p?id=10575

Committee Assignments
Chair: Transportation and Regional Governance Policy
Capital Investment
Transportation Finance

No wonder we don't have good progress on funding.

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1500
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: Suburban City Councils, shenanigans

Postby talindsay » November 8th, 2017, 4:53 pm

twincitizen wrote:
April 27th, 2017, 12:58 pm
I think we can all agree that both RCV (no primary) and "Top 2" nonpartisan/"jungle" primaries are WAAAAY better than the current system we have for state and national partisan elections (first past the post, choosing the lesser of evils, reluctance to support 3rd party candidates, etc.) We need to kill the "first past the post" election system and either go with RCV or "Top 2" for all elections.

The questions that remain are which one is better (or has the least flaws), which one is more efficient, which one is better understood by the public, and which one is easier to sell to the public (or less controversial). One of the theories behind ranked choice is that it's cheaper for taxpayers, but I'm not sure that has been proven. With "Top 2" you still have to run a primary (assuming more than 2 file), but in many elections you could also skip the general/"runoff" election if a candidate reaches 50% in the primary. If we were going to go with a single system for all US elections, I'd pick "Top 2" as the one that could be more easily sold to the public and less controversial.

In partisan elections, this could possibly have the effect of electing more moderates/centrists. In very left-leaning or very right-leaning districts (of which there are many), it is quite likely that two Democrats or two Republicans would finish as the "Top 2" in the primary and advance to the general. Voters of the party which has no candidate in the general election would be likely to vote for the more "centrist" candidate of the other party, hopefully leading to fewer extremists in Congress and state legislatures.
Apologies for digging this out seven months later but I think this is literally the first time I've clicked on a thread named "Suburban [x]" since I discovered people for some reason don't consider St. Paul a suburb :-P

I agree completely with you on this post. I was an adamant proponent of RCV in Minneapolis, but now think that although RCV is a clear improvement over typical first-past-the-post systems, it's not a clear winner over the runoff system (what you call "Top 2") that Minneapolis used before. Arguing for RCV to become the replacement for FPP at a broader level would be tough, while runoffs do make intuitive sense to most people and would go a long way toward improving the system because it forces temporary alliances among moderates, and guarantees that moderate candidates can stake out a path to victory if they explicitly try not to alienate moderates of the other "side".

Of course, for that very reason there will be a certain reluctance to change the system among some currently-invested people, and it's a difficult fight to argue that local governments should have to spend more on elections, especially when voter turnout is already low with a single real election. Those are the selling points for RCV, but its opaqueness for many normal people is a major drawback.


Return to “Local Politics and Governance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest