Over the past 3-4 weeks, I have read may posts on different but related
topics, all having to do with the upcoming mayoral and city council
races- topics like campaign finance reform, endorsements and candidate
screening. But the one thing that hasn't come up yet is this: These
races are supposed to be NON-PARTISAN races for elected city officials.
Non-partisan, as in not-aligned-with-any-particular-political-party.
Why would a candidate seeking an office in a non-partisan election need
the endorsement of a political party?
Suppose, just suppose, that 14 candidates ran as a 'team' in the hopes
of making Minneapolis a better city in which to live, work, play, raise
a family and get an education. Suppose, that as a group, they produced
a written 'vision'- a manifesto of sorts- of what Minneapolis could
become with different leadership during the next decade. The problem
with individual candidates is that each candidate has their own 'wish
list' but once they are elected, they are competing with the 'wish
lists' of each of their colleagues. This is the reason that government
is so slow to respond.
I personally would support such an effort. Lets call it "C.W.O.P.A."-
* Candidates WithOut Party Affiliation
* Candidates WithOut Partisan Attitudes
* Candidates WithOut Personal Agendas
* Candidates WithOut Professional Ambitions
* Candidates WithOut Pay-backs A-waiting
All of this could lead to:
* Citizens WithOut Political Apathy
Lets start with the mayor's race. At the present time, there are 4
candidates trying to get the DFL endorsement. From where I am looking,
the current incumbent mayor is in the driver's seat for that
endorsement. That leaves R.T., Michele (couldn't resist- sorry!) and
Dick as number 2, 3 and 4 (not necessarily in that order), but all
losers. Everyone else (DFL losers, Republican, Independence, Green,
Libertarian, independent) is trying to jockey for position for the
number 2 spot after the September primary. What would happen if Lisa or
R.T. decided not to seek the DFL endorsement and instead decided to take
the 'high road' and truly participate in a non-partisan election (and it
is still not too late for either of them to make that decision).
Suppose that they found 13 individual candidates for each of the ward
council races that also decided to by-pass the endorsement processes of
any political party. And suppose they also found like-minded candidates
running for park board, school board and other offices this fall that
were interested in joining the team.
Now suppose that this group of non-partisan candidates all sat down
together and put on their thinking caps and came up with a 'master plan'
of how the city would be governed under their joint leadership. Suppose
that they came up with a document that could be presented to the voters
in Minneapolis in advance of the election that said this is what we hope
to accomplish once a majority of us are elected and this is how we
intend to get it done. This would be like any other team- each player
has their own strengths and weaknesses. One player would be the
point-person on transportation issues and another player would be the
point person on budgetary issues. The candidates would have already
agreed that they were willing to work together to achieve common goals
for the good of all the residents, businesses and visitors of
Minneapolis. The voters would know what they are 'buying' when they
vote in November. This non-partisan coalition of candidates could
conceivably expect to finish either number 1 or number 2 in the
September primary. It would be them against the incumbent, DFL-machine
supported candidates in the November general election. This
non-partisan team of candidates could conceivably be made up of some
DFL, some Republicans, with a few Independences, Greens and independents
that would appeal to a broad range of voters. Clearly, there are 35+%
of voters in Minneapolis that are not DFL and I would guess that there
are 15+% of dyed-in-the-wool DFL that are disgruntled enough to vote
against the sitting incumbents. Sounds like an interesting race to me.
One that I might even be interested in getting involved in (either as a
candidate or as a volunteer). Maybe even a team that Barret Lane would
like to join.
The 'Dream Team' candidates could reduce expenses by common literature
and lawn signs, printed in quantities that would reduce individual unit
costs. Lawn signs could simply say, 'Support the Dream Team'. Each
candidate, as I understand it, is allowed a 3 word endorsement on the
election ballot. All the voters would have to do is vote for the
candidates that are identified on the ballot as being part of the team.
If something like this isn't possible, then I think the only honest
thing to do is admit that these are really PARTISAN races and run the
primary like any other normal election. DFL candidates run against each
other in September and the winner is on the general election ballot.
Republican candidates run against each other in September and the winner
is also on the November ballot. Independence, Green, Libertarian and
independent candidates likewise. This allows the voters some choice.
As it is now, the choice is usually this: "chose between the following 2
DFL candidates in November that survived from the 6 DFL candidates that
ran in the primary in September". It always amazes me whenever I hear
someone refer to the 'DFL-controlled Minneapolis City Council'. It
can't (or shouldn't be) DFL-controlled if it is really non-partisan- if
it is DFL-controlled, then lets atleast be honest and admit that this is
a partisan race for a partisan office.
"C.W.O.P.A." - It just might be an idea whose time has come.
Ron Lischeid
Windom Neighborhood
#3 in the hearts and minds of voters in District 63A
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
