heartening adoption of Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis, having a
referendum vote on filing fees is a big step in the wrong direction. Preventing
any qualified citizen from running for office is discriminatory. Filing fees
should be dropped entirely. If one person is prevented from running due to lack
of money, or the ability to gather signatures (which isn't easy as I know from
experience), democracy has been thwarted.
I have a few questions to ask those supporting increasing the filing fees:
1. Why do you assume that "frivolous" candidates are only those who don't have
money or the wherewithal to collect signatures? Most of the front runners in
the last mayoral election I thought were terrible, worse than frivolous. Thanks
to IRV I was able to avoid voting for a "clothespin" candidate to prevent
another from possibly winning. I was at least able to vote my conscience. The
words "frivolous" and "candidate" should not go together, or it should be
defined at the voting booth by the voters with access to all candidates.
2. Why should monetary concerns ever be brought up in a city that would be
doing quite well were it not for fiascoes like stadiums gifted to millionaires
without the legally required consent of the governed? Apparently this isn't
about the money involved in the processing of votes. That obfuscation has been
clarified by the "added" option of gathering signatures.
3. What's the difference between a higher fee and collecting signatures? A
candidate with more money can hire someone to collect those signatures. This
amendment will still be putting up a substantial barrier to access to
democracy.
4. How does allowing more candidates hurt democracy? If you don't want to
listen to someone you consider a frivolous candidate, don't. But don't deny
others the right to hear something other than the stagnant two party
sleepwalking dialogue.
5. Should democracy really be all about speed and efficiency? I really can't
empathize with people "irritated" with 35 candidates on the ballot.
Incidentally, this many candidates have appeared on the ballot prior to IRV so
it seems disingenuous to bring it up. How do we know which candidates people
are irritated with. I believe that it is a messy process, but the outcome makes
it worthwhile.
What is this amendment about, really? I'm afraid the answer is that it will
hurt YOUR candidate, who has sufficient money and influence to run and to put
out huge amounts of glossy, meaningless literature, to participate in debates
and to get publicity. You will prevail in shutting people out of debates. You
will not struggle to have everyone heard because you are afraid that someone
will find out there are real solutions to our problems, most of which stem from
the colossal greed of a few and those who work for them.
Janet Nye
Phillips