Fusion was pushed strongly several years back by Progressive Minnesota. They got 25,000 validated signatures to co-endorse Wellstone; Wellstone's office would not take a position on it - until the last day, when it had to -- No, it said, it is too complicated. Three DFL Leg candidates wanted it; PM got the signatures; on the last day the State Chair refused it.
There was a concerted GOP/DFL effort against fusion. In one of the houses the vote was 7 GOP for, 7 DFL for, and all the rest against. The fight against fusion in the Senate was led by John Marty. The only reason fusion got any play at all is that consideration of it was ordered by our Circuit Court; the least was done to abide by it; it was set up by the Leg to go away as fast as possible. Why is it all the examples are of the Green Party endorsing DFLers? The DFL didn't want fusion, but it does want the GP to stand down for them. Get real. --David Shove Roseville On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, McGreevy, James A., III wrote: > Hang on. Fusion doesn't lessen choices. If party rules were equal and a > DFLer sought the Green Party endorsement, the Green party endorsers could > chose the DFLer or someone else. If your premise is that candidates should > seek and abide by party endorsement, fusion doesn't matter. As someone who > grew up on NY politics, I see no problem with fusion candidates. Now the > caucus and endorsement system is another matter - talk about > anti-democratic. . . > > Jim McGreevy > Downtown Minneapolis > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Shove [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 7:41 PM > To: Alan Hooker > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mpls] Re: Multi-Party endorsement > > > > 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 > _______________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________ 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
