Talk amongst yourselves
Is there something wrong with the party endorsement system? Is there a better alternative? Discuss.
posted by MN Politics Guru @ 17:49
Friday, August 04, 2006
Atom Feed
E-mail me
I may post e-mails sent to me on this blog. Consider how stupid you want to look first.Previous Posts
Blogroll
State
These are here because they are MN-related, not because I necessarily endorse them! ;)
MNSpeak.com, a list of MN blogs
Minnesota Democratic Party
Minnesota Republican Party
Minnesota Independence Party
Minnesota Green Party
Minnesota Constitution Party
Minnesota DFLers Blog
Rep. Ray Cox
New Patriot
Minnesota bloggers
MN Lefty Liberal
Useless Thoughts
Captain's Quarters
The Moderate Republican
Fraters Libertas
Read Menace
PowerLine
BoBLOG
Shot In The Dark
MN GOP Watch
Minnesota Democrats Exposed
Dayton vs. Kennedy
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/
Dump Michelle Bachmann
Centrisity
Bludog.com
Inside Minnesota Politics
Minnesota Blue
Pharyngula
Star Tribune Political Blogs
City Pages Blogs
Other
EschatonDaily Kos
Billmon
This Modern World
TalkLeft
Political Animal
Talking Points Memo
TBogg
Xoverboard
Wil Wheaton Dot Net
BushOut.TV
ArchPundit
Other Links
Star TribunePioneer Press
The Minnesota Daily
Minnesota House
Minnesota Senate
Minnesota Politics Discuss
Checks and Balances
3 Comments:
The complaints about the endorsement system remind me of Churchill's famous comment about democracy.
There are two alternatives in other states. One: No endorsement system. Which results in primary races where the person with the most money wins, and engages people primarily through TV ads.
Two: Party endorsement systems that resemble the old "smoke-filled rooms" of yore. In Massachusetts, delegations from local townships show up controlled by a local mayor or legislator, and vote for their allies in brokered arrangements.
There's no perfect process. That's just a liberal delusion.
I'll just add, I think that when people talk about how badly they think the process is flawed, and how it needs "reform," what they really mean is that the candidate they liked didn't get endorsed. I saw a lot of that in 2002, after Moe got the nod over Dutcher. I associate myself with rahelio's comments. If you didn't like that result, you should have been trying to get to the convention and persuading others at the convention to vote for Dutcher. But too many people would rather just whine and mewl and call people idiots and feel superior instead.
The most legitimate criticism of the system I've heard is that the people who show up at the caucuses are the same people over and over again, who make their decisions on the basis of scars from past battles, or develop big egos they expect the candidates to constantly stroke. The solution to that is showing up yourself, and encouraging other fresh blood to do it. Perhaps the DFL could spend some more money on outreach on that than they do. But I don't think some wholesale reform is necessary.
I like the 25% solution. Anything but Melendez striking out at people like Jen Mattson, Ember R-Y, Mike Erlandson and others who put their time in for the DFL and then get scolded. Not a way to build a party.
And what do you do when you discover a flawed candidacy and the convention has already endorsed? Kudos to all those who have stood for election without the endorsement: Chris Coleman, Mark Dayton, Mike Hatch, Rudy Perpich, George Latimer, Mike Freeman, Skip HHH, Ted Mondale, Jim Oberstar, R.T. Rybak, Bob Mattson, Doug Johnson, Mike Ciresi, Mike Erlandson, and on and on and on and on. And if we banned everyone who ever supported an unendorsed candidate we wouldn't have anyone left in the party. Not a realistic position for a progressive party.
Post a Comment
<< Home