On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Alan Hooker wrote: > > Thus, what is so strange about someone being endorsed by the DFL (itself a > fusion of 3 political groups circa 1940's) and the Green Party > simultaneously?
It would be all one way. I believe the DFL has a rule forbidding endorsement of other parties. Some Green locals have done so, to widespread disapproval from many other Greens. Given the DFL rule, the suggestion comes to, Hey, how about the GP endorsing the DFL, standing down for the DFL, green-washing the DFL, for zip zero nada in return. A very bad bargain that I as a Green will fight inside the GP. Fusion LESSENS choices. Should Dr Pepper yield to Pepsi and Coke? Are we better off with fewer choices? Especially if the DFL thinks it can move to the right and still get GP votes? The suggestion comes close to saying, Hey, Greens, why don't you pack it in and let the DFL & GOP run the show? (Even if they offer 90% of us less and less every year)? What we need are MANY voices parties viewpoints, to fit our varied population, and then IRV to make it all work. Let EACH one of us decide how to cast our second choices, for other parties. Why should anyone want to narrow his/her choice to Coke or Pepsi? --David Shove Roseville o cast our second choice for another party. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
