I had a few comments on the recent posts about the DFL and other parties.
I think some of this discussion comes from a lack of agreement on this list
of what a political party is and what its role is in our community. Here is
the definition I would propose: a political party is a group of people who
have a set of core beliefs (a political platform). The members (delegates)
have a social contract with the larger community to spend the time examining
these candidates and measuring them against these core beliefs. They then
vote (an endorsing convention) on the candidate they believe will most
closely uphold the core beliefs of the party. The party then endorses the
candidate who most closely appears to hold these core beliefs. The party
then helps to get this candidate elected so it can be sure its beliefs are
represented.
In Minneapolis, the DFL has done a pretty good job of selecting a set of
core beliefs that match the core beliefs of the majority of citizens. I say
this because history shows the DFL endorsement carries a lot of weight with
voters. It isn't the only endorsement that carries weight - we have also
debated the weight of the endorsement of Stonewall DFL, the Police and Fire
unions, the Central Labor union, the DFL Feminist Caucus, and other groups.
But for the majority of voters (in broad terms), feel they can trust the
people who are the DFL to find candidates that adequately represent their
views. (This is a general statement, however, because we all know of
candidates who did not have the DFL endorsement who were elected.)
I don't see this as a "political monopoly" as someone suggested or that
elections in Minneapolis are "uncompetitive". Voters do have other options,
other platforms to chose from. There are usually several candidates
representing several different perspectives in every election. It just
seems that the DFL candidates, screened with the set of DFL beliefs, "fits"
the most voters' beliefs.
This makes it hard for groups who have a different set of core beliefs.
They would also like to get candidates elected but because their core
beliefs are different, they have difficulty in attracting the voters. They
have two options: they can set up their own political party and be in
opposition to the DFL or they can try and get their concerns added to the
core beliefs of the DFL. Both are quite hard to do. Because the DFL has
been good at finding the center, a new party usually has to go left or right
of the DFL, reducing the number of people they can draw. If the group
wants to try and change the platform of the DFL (like some folks have
alleged that the Green Party candidates have been trying to "infiltrate" the
DFL), it has to convince a large number of people to change their core set
of beliefs. Either approach is very difficult.
Carol Becker
Longfellow
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
