Post by: Steingar on July 14, 2016, 01:43:21 PM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 14, 2016, 02:14:16 PM
Post by: Little Joe on July 14, 2016, 02:34:11 PM
what are the pros and cons about the proposal (other than it has evil Republican backers)?Well, Steingar is against it. That's a pro in my book!😀
Post by: bflynn on July 14, 2016, 03:50:25 PM
what are the pros and cons about the proposal (other than it has evil Republican backers)?
I believe a con would be that with 25 members on the board, it will be more difficult to control others and harder to maintain a majority.
Or is that a pro, given that the thread is about Democracy?
Post by: Gary on July 14, 2016, 05:43:17 PM
My little one-horse town is holding a special election! Set up in late May, the election is set to take place during the first week of August. The Republican backers of the initiative want to change the city council of the Steinholme Metropolis from 7 at-large members to a ward system, with something on the order of 25 members. Looking forward to voting this trash DOWN.
How big is your town? Any rationale for a change like this? If you are really a one-horse town, the logic escapes me on why you would need a 25 member governing board.
Gary
Post by: MarkZ on July 14, 2016, 05:43:51 PM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on July 14, 2016, 08:14:03 PM
Well, Steingar is against it. That's a pro in my book!😀
Post by: Steingar on July 15, 2016, 05:11:31 AM
Second, going from a system with seven full time council members being paid about $56,000 a year to a system with 25 part time members paid $80,000 per year seems the antithesis of smaller government.
Third, in the book of Steingar don't fix it if it ain't broke. Our municipality is actually doing quite well. The city fathers have leveraged public spending into vast amounts of private investment into our little metropolis, our downtown is actually growing as is the city. Indeed, people are moving into downtown, not out of it.
Last, this was an utter stealth campaign. The vote is in a couple weeks, and I just happened to hear about it last night. I could barely find anything about it in the net. Guys I don't trust are waging a stealth campaign to enlarge and fundamentally change the system of municipal governance without citing what issues they seek to remedy in the first place. Smells bad and I don't want it.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 15, 2016, 05:51:55 AM
My one horse town is just shy of a million. I object to this for four reasons. The first is of course that the local GOP are sponsoring it, and I don't trust those guys. Slam me if you want, that's how I roll.
Nice you have an open mind about things. ::)
Second, going from a system with seven full time council members being paid about $56,000 a year to a system with 25 part time members paid $80,000 per year seems the antithesis of smaller government.
Now there is a good reason to at least question WTH is going on with the proposed change. How many times have other communities seen an improvement with larger numbers of council members?
Third, in the book of Steingar don't fix it if it ain't broke. Our municipality is actually doing quite well. The city fathers have leveraged public spending into vast amounts of private investment into our little metropolis, our downtown is actually growing as is the city. Indeed, people are moving into downtown, not out of it.
concur with not fixing something that ain't broken.
Last, this was an utter stealth campaign. The vote is in a couple weeks, and I just happened to hear about it last night. I could barely find anything about it in the net. Guys I don't trust are waging a stealth campaign to enlarge and fundamentally change the system of municipal governance without citing what issues they seek to remedy in the first place. Smells bad and I don't want it.
otoh - it sounds like the people oppsing it haven't been particularly vocal about it either.
Do the local DNC folks also support it?
Do you know why this change was proposed? Or at least what the stated reasons for proposing it are?
Post by: Steingar on July 15, 2016, 06:13:06 AM
Do the local DNC folks also support it?
Don't know, this whole thing has been utterly stealth. Wouldn't care if they did support it (why wouldn't they, what politician wouldn't want to make more politicians?), it smells.
Do you know why this change was proposed? Or at least what the stated reasons for proposing it are?
No, not at all. And I've done some digging. Stealth campaign. I'm betting they were hoping nobody'd notice so they could get this turkey passed.
Post by: nddons on July 15, 2016, 07:09:09 AM
My one horse town is just shy of a million. I object to this for four reasons. The first is of course that the local GOP are sponsoring it, and I don't trust those guys. Slam me if you want, that's how I roll.So you're one horse town is larger than Milwaukee, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, and other mid-sized cities. How do you like Cleveland?
Second, going from a system with seven full time council members being paid about $56,000 a year to a system with 25 part time members paid $80,000 per year seems the antithesis of smaller government.
Third, in the book of Steingar don't fix it if it ain't broke. Our municipality is actually doing quite well. The city fathers have leveraged public spending into vast amounts of private investment into our little metropolis, our downtown is actually growing as is the city. Indeed, people are moving into downtown, not out of it.
Last, this was an utter stealth campaign. The vote is in a couple weeks, and I just happened to hear about it last night. I could barely find anything about it in the net. Guys I don't trust are waging a stealth campaign to enlarge and fundamentally change the system of municipal governance without citing what issues they seek to remedy in the first place. Smells bad and I don't want it.
We also have a problem in Milwaukee County for part-time politicians voting themselves full-time wages and benefits, and it took the state to pass a statute limiting that.
But isn't there an argument to be made that a ward system (local representation) is closer to the people than at-large elected councilmen?
Post by: Mase on July 15, 2016, 07:10:55 AM
My one horse town is just shy of a million.
Sounds like a two-horse town.
Also sounds like the proposal might be a bad idea. Would be nice to know their reasoning.
Post by: Mr Pou on July 15, 2016, 07:16:05 AM
Post by: JeffDG on July 15, 2016, 07:33:37 AM
People need to be able to reach out to their representative and say "You...you're my guy, now here's a slap upside the head because you're being a maroon". At-large districts (and by this I mean multi-member at-large districts, not stuff like the Congresscritter for South Dakota, still only one congresscritter to slap upside the head) dilute the link between the people and their representatives.
Post by: Steingar on July 15, 2016, 07:38:53 AM
Post by: Mr Pou on July 15, 2016, 08:09:53 AM
A 9 member council. Sorry, if it has an odd number of folks a majority can lord it over a minority and gerrymander likes its no one's business. Not buying. Voting this turkey DOWN.
But, an odd number means something always gets done, whether it's for or against. Even number can result in stalemate.
Post by: Mase on July 15, 2016, 08:21:26 AM
But, an odd number means something always gets done, whether it's for or against. Even number can result in stalemate.
Sometimes gridlock is good.
Post by: bflynn on July 15, 2016, 09:55:13 AM
What I'm hearing is that Steiner doesn't trust Republicans. But that's ok because I don't really trust either side, I think that everyone who sits and points fingers at the "other guy" as being the problem is ALSO part of the problem. Yes, the other guy might be doing something wrong, but as long as you're set against them you really don't have any ability to influence.
Move toward the middle and that will have to include stopping and thinking about your opponent's beliefs and especially values.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 15, 2016, 10:03:22 AM
Move toward the middle and that will have to include stopping and thinking about your opponent's beliefs and especially values.
Being in the middle isn't necessarily good. E.g., if one side is so far to the left that they feel the middle is right-wing extremism, then not much gets done.
Post by: Little Joe on July 15, 2016, 10:16:09 AM
Being in the middle isn't necessarily good. E.g., if one side is so far to the left that they feel the middle is right-wing extremism, then not much gets done.Just remember, there are people on both ends of the bell curve. But the farther out you get, the fewer they become.
Post by: bflynn on July 15, 2016, 11:30:28 AM
Being in the middle isn't necessarily good. E.g., if one side is so far to the left that they feel the middle is right-wing extremism, then not much gets done.
And vice versa. If they are so far to the right that they always give that example using people who are far to the left then they're pretty much the same thing.
I think the virtue of being in the middle is that you can listen to, understand and respect all sides. If you're at the edges of the bell curve then kinda by definition you can't have any reaction except to disagree and demand that everyone else do it your way. That's also what I think the fault of fanatics are - they are incapable of agreeing to anything they don't already believe in.
What is right for you isn't necessarily right for everyone.
Post by: nddons on July 15, 2016, 12:19:24 PM
Being in the middle isn't necessarily good. E.g., if one side is so far to the left that they feel the middle is right-wing extremism, then not much gets done.And sadly adherence to the Constitution now constitutes right-wing extremism to a plurality of Americans.
Post by: Steingar on July 15, 2016, 01:00:54 PM
And sadly adherence to the Constitution now constitutes right-wing extremism to a plurality of Americans.
To Conservatives, adherence to the Constitution means the government doing things they like. Deviating from the Constitution means government doing things they don't like. Judges who do things conservatives like administer justice. Judges who do things conservatives don't like are activist.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 15, 2016, 04:10:38 PM
To Conservatives, adherence to the Constitution means the government doing things they like. Deviating from the Constitution means government doing things they don't like. Judges who do things conservatives like administer justice. Judges who do things conservatives don't like are activist.
you just refuse to understand...
Post by: nddons on July 16, 2016, 06:54:31 AM
To Conservatives, adherence to the Constitution means the government doing things they like. Deviating from the Constitution means government doing things they don't like. Judges who do things conservatives like administer justice. Judges who do things conservatives don't like are activist.You really haven't been paying attention in class, Michael.
Post by: bflynn on July 16, 2016, 01:59:18 PM
And sadly adherence to the Constitution now constitutes right-wing extremism to a plurality of Americans.
No it doesn't. Adherence to LAW is an American virtue and you defame it by suggesting that only 10%-20% of the country believes in it.
Post by: bflynn on July 16, 2016, 02:05:22 PM
To Conservatives, adherence to the Constitution means the government doing things they like. Deviating from the Constitution means government doing things they don't like. Judges who do things conservatives like administer justice. Judges who do things conservatives don't like are activist.
And vice versa.
If judges believed that they have to set aside their personal agenda (cough-Ginsberg) and make decisions based on the logic of the law then things would not be as they are. Mostly left what I see, but also some right - too many judges figure out what they want the answer to be and then figure out the tortured way they have to twist things to arrive at it. That is how we arrive at judicial decisions which arrive at a point which is a polar opposite of traditional constitutional rulings.
The problem with that is the same problem that Comey and Lynch set in motion - it is disruptive to the stability of the law and therefore to the stability of the country and government. Today it is entirely possible that someone attempting to comply with laws will still run afoul of them as judged after the fact. That is no basis for a stable society, stable law or a stable government. It threatens everyone's liberty.
Post by: Gary on July 16, 2016, 03:03:28 PM
If judges believed that they have to set aside their personal agenda (cough-Ginsberg) and make decisions based on the logic of the law then things would not be as they are. Mostly left what I see, but also some right - too many judges figure out what they want the answer to be and then figure out the tortured way they have to twist things to arrive at it. That is how we arrive at judicial decisions which arrive at a point which is a polar opposite of traditional constitutional rulings.
This is exactly why the Founders set up the Supreme Court. Any two people can read the exact set of words and come up with different interpretations. That is just human nature. The Founders, IMHO, recognized this and designed a system that allows for a final ruling. It isn't perfect, but over time isn't so bad. Everyone puts their own spin on things based on their personal beliefs and experiences. To expect all judges to be perfectly neutral and un-biased is just not doable.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 16, 2016, 05:00:00 PM
TTo expect all judges to be perfectly neutral and un-biased is just not doable.
Why should we accept less?
Post by: nddons on July 16, 2016, 05:15:54 PM
No it doesn't. Adherence to LAW is an American virtue and you defame it by suggesting that only 10%-20% of the country believes in it.I defame it? Screw yourself.
Have you not seen the complete whitewash of Hillary's felonies, Obama's outright violation of the Separation of Powers, the current narrative about limits on the First and Second Amendments, supported by what used to be the Fourth Estate, and which is now the Fifth Column?
Tell me how many democrats are abandoning Hillary because of her felonious actions with respect to compromising top secret documents. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on July 17, 2016, 01:04:30 PM
I defame it? Screw yourself.
Have you not seen the complete whitewash of Hillary's felonies, Obama's outright violation of the Separation of Powers, the current narrative about limits on the First and Second Amendments, supported by what used to be the Fourth Estate, and which is now the Fifth Column?
Tell me how many democrats are abandoning Hillary because of her felonious actions with respect to compromising top secret documents. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Stan are you a Savage listener?
Post by: nddons on July 17, 2016, 01:31:59 PM
Stan are you a Savage listener?No, he's a jag, and his pro-Trump/anti-Cruz stance during the primaries was sickening. Why do you ask?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on July 17, 2016, 02:49:26 PM
No, he's a jag, and his pro-Trump/anti-Cruz stance during the primaries was sickening. Why do you ask?
He says the "Fourth Estate, and which is now the Fifth Column" a lot. Figures since you're not a T fan you're not an S fan either.
Post by: nddons on July 17, 2016, 08:19:43 PM
He says the "Fourth Estate, and which is now the Fifth Column" a lot. Figures since you're not a T fan you're not an S fan either.Huh. I've been saying that for a long time. Maybe I should sue Savage for copyright infringement.
Post by: bflynn on July 17, 2016, 09:29:02 PM
I defame it? Screw yourself.
Have you not seen the complete whitewash of Hillary's felonies, Obama's outright violation of the Separation of Powers, the current narrative about limits on the First and Second Amendments, supported by what used to be the Fourth Estate, and which is now the Fifth Column?
Tell me how many democrats are abandoning Hillary because of her felonious actions with respect to compromising top secret documents. Go ahead, I'll wait.
So Hillary and a lot of Democrats are crooks, Republicans are saints and therefore screw the law? You have made my point and more effectively than I could.
If you are bothered then talk to moderates about it. Make them understand your side in a rational way. You should preach neither to the choir nor the opposition because you will not change a fanatic's mind.
Post by: Number7 on July 18, 2016, 06:31:31 AM
To Conservatives, adherence to the Constitution means the government doing things they like. Deviating from the Constitution means government doing things they don't like. Judges who do things conservatives like administer justice. Judges who do things conservatives don't like are activist.
Sadly, your complete lack of intellectual honesty on anything that involves politics and your utter devotion to whatever claptrap the progressives in the faculty lounge are vomiting, precludes you from serious debate on almost every subject.
Post by: nddons on July 18, 2016, 09:10:10 AM
So Hillary and a lot of Democrats are crooks, Republicans are saints and therefore screw the law? You have made my point and more effectively than I could.What in the hell are you talking about? I stated that adherence to the Constitution now qualifies as right-wing extremism to a plurality of Americans, you claim I defile the law by saying so, and now imply that Republicans are saints, and screw the law? Who is screwing the law again?
If you are bothered then talk to moderates about it. Make them understand your side in a rational way. You should preach neither to the choir nor the opposition because you will not change a fanatic's mind.
It's impossible to argue with such illogical ramblings. It usually helps to re-read previous posts before posting something. It helps you sound more cogent.