[Mpls] Rules for Endorsement at Ward 2 DFL Convention

[Greg Abbott]

I'm an outsider with respect to Ward 2, but as former chair of the city 
DFL, and a long-time believer in the endorsement process, I have to 
concur with Mr. Cross.  The actual substance of the proposed rules will 
result in no endorsement, especially in a convention with more than two 
viable candidates.  I cannot speak to the intent of the proposers, but 
the outcome is pretty obvious.  In a multi-candidate field it 
frequently takes several ballots just to get to the last two 
candidates.  Once the field is winnowed to two candidates, an 
endorsement can be reached very quickly.

Two proposed rule changes I view as particularly problematic: the 
two-thirds quorum and the lack of a drop-off rule.  I have never heard 
of a two-thirds quorum rule, ever.  The reason for this is obvious - it 
would be nearly impossible to maintain a quorum with such a high 
threshold.  This would permit a candidate (or a combination of 
candidates) with as little as 33 percent of the vote to block an 
endorsement by having his or her supporters leave the convention -- 
effectively raising the number of votes needed to obtain an endorsement 
from 60 to 67 percent.  Talk about thwarting the will of the majority!!

And the drop-off rule is integral to the endorsing process.  Without a 
drop-off rule, the DFL convention becomes a very small primary.  It 
doesn't help DFL primary voters to know that 40 percent of convention 
delegates preferred Candidate X, 25 percent Candidate Y, and so on.  In 
contrast, it does help DFL voters to know that 60 percent of convention 
delegates think the party should unify behind Candidate Z.  The point 
of the drop-off rule is to test the convictions of the delegates - if 
they truly think only their candidate is worthy of endorsement they can 
vote "no endorsement."  (A vote for no endorsement is always 
available).  Without a drop-off rule, delegates are never forced to 
choose between no endorsement and endorsement of a competing candidate.

If the problem you're trying to solve is overly long conventions, the 
solution is a stricter drop-off rule, not a weaker one.  Speed up the 
arrival of the point where the delegates have to make a final choice - 
postponing it only extends the convention needlessly (and thereby makes 
an endorsement less likely).

The party is stronger if it unifies behind one candidate.  It happens 
occasionally that the convention gets it wrong, and primary voters go 
in a different direction.  But the convention should be given an 
opportunity to take that chance, and not have the choice effectively 
taken away by the rules committee.

With rules like these, what's the point of having the convention?


Greg Abbott
Linden Hills