Chuck Repke's argument for the present single
endorsement/agreemnt to abide is based on the belief
that a multiple endorsement system would favor wealthy
candidates who can afford to finance their own primary
campaigns.
Andy Driscoll argues that the present system results
in a few DFL activists selecting candidates based upon
their longevity and loyalty to the party and all too
frequently results in putting up DFL candidates that
do not reflect the concerns of the voters. In other
words the DFL powers that be are more interested in
retaining their control of the party than they are in
winning elections.
Both of these concerns are valid it seems to me. But
couldn't a system be devised to take care of both? Why
not endorse multiple candidates but also require that
endorsees limit their spending, agree to participate
in DFL sponsored debates and agree to a code of
campaign conduct? It seems to me that the present
single endorsement system is throwing the baby out
with the bath water. If the reason for it is to
prevent wealth from prevailing, it makes no sense as
most of the qualified but unendorsed candidates are
not wealthy. And the candidate who depends on his/her
wealth isn't going to be deterred from a lack of an
endorsement in any event. And, further, it's
undeniable that the endorsement system has failed to
put forward successful candidates far too often.
Charlie Swope
Ward 1
-------------------------------------------------
JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY:
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/
-------------------------------------------------
POST MESSAGES HERE: [email protected]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
