> > the age old litmus test -
> > will you run against the
> > DFL endorsed candidate in the primary?
Let's do a private sector analogy. Say Target only has room in its Twin
Cities stores to display one brand of vacuum cleaner, and it screens Red
Devil, Hoover and Eureka to decide which brand to offer. A key
screening question is: "if we don't pick your brand, do you promise to
refrain from selling your line at any of our competitors' Twin City
stores."
Of course a vacuum cleaner vendor wouldn't stay out of the Twin Cities
market without some sort of (illegal) financial inducement, or the
promise of being the preferred vendor in some other Target sales
regions.
Wouldn't we call the arrangement "restraint of trade" and "monopolistic
practices."
Doesn't this remind you of "abide by the endorsement" litmus tests.
These "promise to withdraw" arrangements disadvantage the voters
(including rank and file DFL primary voters) and advantage the
organized, early and often, activists. And it is worst that it is done
in supposedly non-partisan elections. And that it is initiated and
enforced by the screening groups that claim to be promoting a value or
identity interest. It looks more like they are promoting the kingmaking
monopoly of the insiders.
Apropos gay (or environmentalists or feminists or unionists or
religionists...) insiders and outsiders, the French have a saying. (The
French have Deputies instead of Representatives, and Communist are
supposed to have solidarity.):
"Two Deputies, one of whom is a Communist, have more in common than two
Communists, one of whom is a Deputy."
Alan Shilepsky
Downtown
PS--isn't there a law against inducing a person not to run? Does it
only come into play after filing?
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
