_7.5 average_____ 1. On a scale of
(0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, what is
your view on whether a political party should be open to the
possibility of endorsing a candidate of another party for a given
_4.0 average_____ 2. On a scale of
(0) most disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) most agreement, what is
your view on whether--in the event a political party has chosen to
endorse a candidate of another political party for a specific
office--state law should allow that party to close its own ballot to
candidate filings for that office?
Great summary -- he makes very good points!
David Broden (7) (0)
Question 1: This can work as was shown for many years in NY (ie Javits
etc.). There needs to be some criteria established which can be
controlled by the state as well as discipline within the parties. By
allowing the cross endorsement it offer candidates the opportunity to
broaden appeal and bring in voters who have issues with a particular
party but not necessarily with the candidate etc.
Question 2: Endorsement should not limit the ability of those not
endorsed by a party to be shown on the ballot a candidate for the
party they wish to represent. This is no different than the
endorsement process we have today. Any party can endorse for a primary
but anyone else can also run--seems to me to clearly what "free
expression" is about.
Bill Hamm (0) (0)
Question 1. This is the most politically ignorant issue facing the IP
in recent years and Dillon has been one of it's supporters. Any
political party that cross endorses undermines its own brand as we did
last year with the Tinklenberg endorsement. This issue has split and
undermined the party for absolutely no benefit. It appears at this
time that the present leadership is moving to end this ridiculous
practice and stop the naive idiots supporting it.
Question 2. More political naivety from a political newcomer. Absolute
The IP is back to square one again because of political stupidity from
within such as the issues presented here. Some of us are in the
process of creating a challenge movement from within to put this party
on a forward track again.
Sheila Kiscaden (8) (0)
Question 1: The other two parties do not do this because it does have
the effect of diluting the power and impact of the party. The
Independence Party is in a difficult position of trying to attract
people and get visibility in a system whose rules protect the two
major parties. For that reason it is more appealing to the
Independence Party...but may still be self-defeating.
Question 2: This would result in having only the most zealously
partisan candidates. Since party activists choose who to endorse, the
trend would be to have a series of litmus tests about party ideology
or platform be the basis for endorsement.
The open filings option which allows someone to challenge the endorsed
candidate is a much needed safety valve. It gives the electorate the
power to challenge and remedy the decisions of party activists who
tend to be much more partisan than the general population.
Vance Norgaard (0) (0)
Thank you for the good work that you are doing and this opportunity to
After participating in the MNIP cross endorsement of a couple of
candidates this past year I will never do it again. I do not ever see
any reciprocation on the horizon from the two major parties. In fact I
am going to support the dropping of cross endorsement in the MNIP. I
have come to think of cross endorsement as nonsensical. Can you ever
imagine the Democratic Party endorsing a candidate from the Republican
I further wish to say the Mr. Dillion’s idea of a law limiting or
closing out candidates is undemocratic, would discourage new
candidates, would only help the major parties and is simply not well
Stephen Williams (0) (0)
Mr. Dillon seems more interested in cross endorsing candidates from
other parties than in finding and supporting candidates in the
Independence Party. His position is indefensible. How can he justify
closing the primary when a party has cross endorsed a candidate from
another party when he does not even support a candidate who is a
member of the Independence Party that has the party's endorsement? For
example, last year the Independence Party endorsed Stephen Williams
for U. S. Senate. Mr. Dillon chose to support Dean Barkley’s primary
challenge. Am I to believe that if Stephen Williams had been a cross
endorsed Democrat instead of an Independence Party member he would not
have supported Mr. Barkley but instead supported the cross endorsed
candidate? His position is hypocritical and self serving, and
unfortunately this is not uncommon in politics or in the leadership of
the Independence Party. That said I still believe that the
Independence Party is our best hope for reforming the political
process, but the party of reform needs reforming itself.
David Pierson (8) (0)
Bill Frenzel (10) (8)
Question 1: Political parties should be able to make their own
mistakes (short of murder or mayhem).
Question 2: That’s a tougher question, but rationale above applies.
Rick Bishop (8) (4)
Robert A. Freeman (8) (5)
Question 1: I think this is fine but it signals that your party is too
weak to produce its own candidate and you are instead backing the
least worst option.
Question 2: I am ambivalent on this - I see the value in preventing
someone not associated with the party from pretending to bear its
standard in the election but at the same time I am loath to give the
IP (or any party) that right if they are not strong enough to field
their own candidate.
Aside, I think that it is unfortunate that people and their families
come under increased scrutiny when they choose to run for office, but
it is also important that the public consider their elected officials
beyond reproach if they are going to put their faith in them to run
the country. So I consider this a necessary evil.
Ray Schmitz (10) (10)
Question 1: Remember that the DFL is a merger of the D and the FL
parties relatively recently.
Question 2: The law recognizes that the parties are private operations
rather than public. They should be able to control who their candidate
is; if voters don't like it they will go elsewhere.
Alan Miller (9) (0)
Timothy Utz (10) (0)
From my personal experience in running for state office last year,
party label is inferior to the candidate message. I follow
constitutional rule of law as my platform, the vote results with a
3.5-month campaign for first time candidate is the Democrat lost 3%
support and I gained 1%. We stopped the Obama love fest and the
Republican bleed. The larger issue is creatively seeking voters not in
a candidate's party support structure but outside the base support. We
are currently running a campaign for 2010 and seeking constitution,
independent endorsements for our district. Neither party has the
support structure in this district, but has a candidate in me they can
Robert J. Brown (8) (2)
Question 1: I would prefer something like the old systems in New York
or California had that allowed candidates to appear on more than one
party’s ballot in open primaries (how Earl Warren won both party’s
primaries in 1946) and in general elections where you would total all
the votes that candidate got in the election.
Question 2: As long as we have the caucus system I would be skeptical
of giving “party leaders” the right to deny access to the ballot. For
example, while technically a major party the Independence Party is
small enough that it would be fairly easy to arrange a coup so that a
small group could blitz enough caucuses, pass resolutions backing
another party’s candidate and shut out those who legitimately support
the principles of the IP.
Kent Eklund (9) (9)
Bert Press (10) (10)
Rick Krueger (10) (0)
Question 1: (Although this really is not the key issue. The real issue
is that state law prohibits candidates from being listed on a ballot
with more than one party endorsement. So this is not a matter of
whether or not a party can endorse a candidate from a different party.
It is rather an issue of whether or not designation can appear on the
ballot; which currently it cannot.
Question 2: This would totally negate Primary Elections as we know
them today and for the wrong reason. The very purpose of our primaries
is to allow a process for citizens beyond those who are caucus
attendees to have a voice in who is the party designate in the General
Election. If Parties were allowed to do this, neither Rudy Perpich
(Round 2) or Arne Carlson would have been Governor.
What might be more appropriate is to have the top two vote getters in
the primary run-off in the General Election. Keep in mind, there are
losing candidates in the Primary Elections who receive more votes than
someone in the “third” position in a three candidate race receives.
For the sake of argument, those candidates only have half the votes to
draw from in a Primary. So to have an instant run-off does not
guarantee that even the third highest vote-getter becomes an
alternative. Instant run-offs in partisan races are frankly a scam
that puts in place a mechanism to favor a candidate from the third
Charles Lutz (8) (5)
Peter Hennessey (0) (10)
Question 1. What does it mean to be a party (a voluntary organization
formed for the purpose of promoting candidates with a particular point
of view) to be endorsing the candidates of another party? If they are
so much in agreement, then the two parties should join, or if there
are differences but they need to temporarily unite against another
party's seemingly popular candidate who advocates onerous positions,
then let the individual members make that choice in the voting booth.
Oops, they already have that choice.
Question 2. What does it mean to endorse somebody, your own candidate
or some other party's? If you already made a choice (endorsement) then
you have indicated that you don't want any other candidates running
with your blessings. All the filings should be done before the
endorsement is official.
Comments on the guest's points:
1. We don't want "Pragmatic, centrist, and independent" candidates.
They stand for nothing, they have no standards by which to judge right
or wrong, they have no standards by which to judge if something
"works." Good people are not running for office because of vicious
campaign tactics -- if you can't make an argument based on ideas and
reason, they you try to destroy your opponent with personal attacks --
or, as we see in the news today, by criminalizing policy
disagreements. Who'd want to seek public office, elected or appointed,
if you risk jail for having served?
2. You don't get better candidates by tinkering with the vote counting
process. You get better candidates if you foster an atmosphere of
clean campaigns devoid of dirty tactics, and a non-partisan press
corps interested in reporting, not creating news.
3. More pay? No. If these people are to be public "servants," then
they should realize that they are NOT in it for the money, they are
NOT in it as a life-long career. It is a public "service" precisely
because it is a temporary personal sacrifice -- or maybe not, because
serving in any office brings the beneficial perk of meeting all the
right people who can help you professionally.
4. If a third party cannot control its brand, then it is not a party.
If the two major parties co-opt its positions, then it has the choice
to follow the example of the two major parties: the Democrats were
taken over by the socialists ("progressives," "populists," whatever)
at least since the 1920's, and the Republicans have been in a state of
vacillation between East-Coast Rockefeller RINO's and mostly western
and southern Conservatives, Libertarians and Reagan Democrats since
about Goldwater and Reagan.
5. What does it mean, you are a Republican but you are for gay
marriage? That's one definition of a RINO; that is, too chicken to
switch to Democrat. Likewise, how can you be a Democrat yet still be
for the secret ballot, strong defense, limited government, etc.?
That's a Blue Dog; that is, too chicken to switch to Republican. What
does it mean to be a Republican or a Democrat if people treat policy
positions like the salad bar at the Hometown Buffet? How do we tell if
a candidate is "most able for the job" -- "most able" by what
6. Term limits are critical for a healthy republic. Candidates must
have significant real life experience to qualify them for office. Then
they serve for a while and get back to their own lives, and let
someone else serve. The Republic does not need career politicians, it
needs people who know how to manage the bureaucracy effectively and
efficiently. That experience must come from real life, not from
life-long public or civil service. The Republic does not need
charismatic leaders who see every crisis as an opportunity not to be
wasted, it needs public servants who do NOT crave using and misusing
power for its own sake.
Donald H. Anderson (0) (0)
Maybe they ought to get another name. A true independent voter, votes
for who he or she feels is the best candidate, regardless of party.
What's the difference between a party endorsing a candidate from
another party and endorsing one of its own? No one would say a party
should be able to exclude non-endorsees from the primary ballot.
Lyall Schwarzkopf (10) (0)
Government and courts have, generally, not gotten into the operation
of political parties and I believe it should be that way. If a
political party wants to endorse someone that is their business. If
they do not want to endorse someone that is their business. Government
should make sure that elections are run on a fair, impartial bases and
that every one eligible to vote has the opportunity to vote.
Government has already taken to many things away from political
parties under the guise of "reform" such as the financing of
candidates and that has weakened the political parties which are a
broader base of citizens than most interest groups. To fill that
vacuum, special interest groups are providing money, TV ads, and
workers in place of the political party and are beginning to control
candidates for the special interest group. That must stop or we will
actually have small, issued centered special interest groups
controlling the governing process.
Bright Dornblaser (10) (10)
Shari Prest (10) (5)
Jim Olson (10) (10)
Carolyn Ring (8) (8)
Question 2: That still would not negate the possibility of someone
filing as an Independent (no Party).
Vici Oshiro (9) (8)
Question 2: An alternative would be to put "[party] endorsed" on the
ballot. Others could run with party ID as at present, but not use the
I think the discussion about "gate keepers" reflects the experience of
those who live in strongly partisan precincts. Here in Burnsville
where we are closer to 50/50, that tendency is not as strong.
Ellen Brown (10) (0)
Question 2: Why would they do that? The DFL and Republicans let as
many people file as want to, don't they?
Al Quie (10) (0)
Fusion voting, which is currently not allowed in Minnesota, would be
an additional help in promoting third party participation. Legislation
has been introduced to allow for fusion voting (HF 654). See article
by Dave Morris that advocates for fusion and IRV voting. http://www.fairvotemn.org/node/1061
Gene Franchett (10) (10)
Ray Ayotte (5) (5)
Jim Keller (10) (0)