--- Denny Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The problem with independent, non-affiliated voters
> is they want the best of both worlds.
> They want others to defer to their judgment but
> want complete independence to exercise their own.
> That's no way to run a political party, in my
> opinion.
Dennis hit a very important point that independents
often miss. Political parties generally choose the
candidates either during the endorsement process or
via the party nominating primary. The independent
voter only participates in part of the process,
ignoring the part that requires the most work.
In some nominally non-partisan elections, the parties
participation is less (i.e. soil conservation district
or small town school board). It certainly is not the
case in either Minneapolis or St. Paul.
What I find interesting about the current situation is
that someone was eligible to be a candidate for
endorsement, but wasn't qualified to speak (maybe it
was a creative ruling of the Chair).
At a Republican endorsing convention a candidate gets
a specified amount of time (varies by office and
convention) to use as he or she sees fit. I've never
seen a candidate not use at least some of that time
themselves.
In a partisan race we could not endorse a candidate
who was not on the ballot as a Republican. There is
more leeway in an election where a candidate is for
non-partisan office, however, I think there would be
objection to a candidate who identified his or her
"political philosophy" as is done on the Minneapolis
ballot as the name of another political party.
Terrell Brown
Loring Park
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
