Carol,
The system you are describing makes sense in a monopoly/duopoly setting
where there are only one or two sides to an issue. If you expand your
research a bit and look around the globe, you'll find successful coalition
governments, made up of different parties who come together to represent
their collective constituents. Cross-endorsement, as you call it, happens
all the time, as there are no "true majorities". Look how many people today
refuse to call themselves Democratic or Republican, and instead say "I'm
socially liberal, but fiscally responsible", or something else.
Just think - in a non-two party system the Greens and the Democratic Party
could have joined forces during the latter part of the election and won.
Nader could have been given, say the Sec'y of the Interior post, and life
would be good.
I am concerned about voters who believe that only two parties can exist -
"if you disagree with me, you must be in that other party". Life is too
complicated - we have live in a full spectrum of Techni-color!
KtW>
-----------------------------------
Kurt Waltenbaugh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ECCO, Ward 10
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Carol Becker
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 10:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mpls] cross-endorsement/Response to Mr. Martinez
> Carol,
>
> You are a thoughtful person, so consider the following:
> The people of New York and several other states have had the opportunity
to
> nominate fusion candidates for years. Progressive candidates like Gov.
Como
> benefited from being on both the Liberal Party and Democratic Party
lines -
> the combined total was more than a single party line would have generated.
> Are people in New York REALLY so much smarter than people in Minnesota?
> Isn't it possible that people here could understand fusion just fine? It
> would be an expansion of democracy and possibly increase participation for
> two parties to be able to nominate the same candidate in the same race if
> that candidate is mutually acceptable. Why is the DFL so opposed to
fusion?
> The DFL should be less concerned with insisting upon a monopoly when it
> comes to nominating a good candidate and more concerned with increasing
> turnout and actually electing candidates. There may be some people in the
> DFL who would rather lose with a single party endorsement than win with a
> fusion ticket.
For me, this issue goes back to my beliefs about what a political party is.
I have argued in the past that a political party is a group of people with a
common set of values and from that comes a common set of approaches to
societal issues. This group of individuals then endorses the person or
persons that they feel best supports their approaches to issues. The
commitment I make to my community as a delegate is that I will examine the
candidates and recommend to the community the one that will best represent
the DFL values.
Let me explain this in a different way. If you saw a candidate endorsed by
the Nazi Party, you would have a pretty clear guess what values that person
would bring to a job. Could this person also be endorsed by the DFL party?
It would be my hope that the values which make up the DFL party would be in
conflict with the Nazi party to the point where it would not be possible for
someone to receive both endorsements. The individual could not represent
both philosophies. From your example, does Mr. Cuomo represent the Liberal
Party philosophy or the Democratic philosophy? Or are the Liberal and
Democratic philosophies so similar that Mr. Cuomo can represent both? In
that case I would argue that the two parties should merge.
I cannot speak for the DFL but it seems to me that when you cross-endorse,
you lose the purpose for the endorsement. The larger community does not
know what values the candidate represents. In my example, would the
candidate act more along the value lines of the Nazi or DFL party? In your
example, is Mr. Cuomo representing the Liberal or Democratic approaches?
Cross endorsement means that the community doesn't know.
I disagree with your statement that the DFL has a monopoly on nominating
good candidates. I think other parties also nominate good candidates. We
have seen candidates from a wide variety of parties run and some of them
have won. We have even seen candidates with no party affiliation win.
I think the struggle for non-DFL candidates, however, is that the DFL values
and approaches do a fairly good job of representing the values and desired
approaches of the citizens of the City of Minneapolis. Overall, the values
of other parties do not seem to fit our citizens as well. I think this is
frustrating for people from other parties because they see this as a
monopoly. I don't see it as a monopoly at all but as a natural outcome of
citizens "shopping" in the supermarket of political philosophies and
selecting the one that most fits their beliefs.
I would also say that I give Minneapolis voters great amounts of respect.
They listen to the candidates and really do make a decision about candidates
regardless of party endorsement. I do not believe that Minneapolis citizens
blindly vote for whatever the DFL serves up.
To quote the Bible, no man can serve two masters. And no candidate can
serve two the philosophies of two parties.
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
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://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
