I feel the party has a responsibility to endorse and support any of its members. Individual members are still free to support/vote for whoever they want.
There is no reason for a party to endorse its own members without the members voting for it first. All candidates need to be held to the same standards by this party, no matter what party they're from.
Don't want to interject if I'm not welcome, but isn't the sole point of a party to get its members elected so they can govern by the party's philosophies. If someones not automatically endorsed what the point of there being parties at all?
I'm with Flo on this one (even if I decided not to vote), even if my reasons are based on a minor detail. Let's say someone enters the party just for the sake of getting endorsed, that would create a problem for the party's image, even if we just avoided voting for said candidate. When IBDD and I were members of the deceased UNDA, Kitteh joked that she could perfectly join just for the sake of trolling a little bit.
Besides, since our party is fairly big tent (or at least there's some variety to choose from), it's perfectly possible for members of all wings to be less supportive of members of the opposite wing, and I guess the more democratic method would be allowing a vote on that. We say that parties and their governing policies are the point of the game, but I think the thing that really drives the game is personalities and individuals.
Excuse me for intruding, but one suggestion I have heard (don't know if it was ever implemented by any party) was to have party members be endorsed by default, but allow a motion to unendorse a party member for a particular office. It would reduce potential for divisions and bitterness, but also allow for disassociaton from undesirable candidates if necessary.
