[Sosfbay-discuss] GPCA position on electoral votes by congressional district???
alexcathy at aol.com
alexcathy at aol.com
Sat Sep 22 13:02:12 PDT 2007
Dear Green Friends,
Bob Herbert has a column in the New York Times today about this very question.? He says it could be the "Bush v Gore" of 2008.?
I confess, my knee-jerk reaction was to join the Democrats and oppose this measure as yet another power grab by the Rethugs.?
But then, after reading these e-mails, I had second thoughts.?
Why should Greens help bailout the damned California Democrats??
What's in it for us?
Some how or the other we should make it plain we want proportional representation across the board.? Who knows.? Maybe the Republicans will want to deal.? I would not have said this sis years ago but now I don't give a damn about bringing some pain to the California Democrats.? It means California will no longer be a "safe state" for Green presidential candidates, but since all of y'all ridicule the "Safe States" strategy anyway, it should not matter.?
Alex Walker
-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Johnson <JamBoi at Greens.org>
To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:21 pm
Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: GPCA position on electoral votes by congressional district???
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [gpus-del] [G-C-F] Fwd: GPCA position on electoral votes by
congressional district???
From: "Dana Silvernale"
Date: Fri, September 21, 2007 22:13
To: "Delegates from GPCA to GPUS"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fully agree with Susan.
In addition, I am opposed to any winner-take-all system, whether by
state or by congressional district. Neither represents the diversity
of the people. I would like to see proportional representation based
in grassroots participatory democracy. There are excellent models for
that in practice in South America. A description of one such model is
in a book recommended to me by Noam Chomsky, Lula and the Workers'
Party. The book also does a good job of describing how to build a
base of support for a party seeking to challenge the parties in power.
Dana Silvernale
Humboldt Green Party
On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:23 PM, funking at mindspring.com wrote:
> I sent out a query a few weeks ago about this, after getting a
> media call wanting our reaction.
>
> The points I made were:
>
> 1) This does nothing to promote Green party backed election
> reforms, such as the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting and
> Proportional Representation;
>
> 2) A possible negative effect on the CA GP would be the spreading
> of the spoiler issue around the presidential race to the
> Congressional District level, which COULD impact our ability to run
> successful local campaigns and win (in other words, people would
> not vote for local Greens if they were pissed off/scared about the
> Presidential candidate potentially 'spoiling' the race their home
> Congressional district).
>
> 3) Republicans are already over represented in both Federal houses,
> due to the fact that many red states are sparsley populated and
> each Congresperson represents far fewer voters than those in large
> states. In CA and NY, Congres folk represent upwards of a million
> constituents per district, compared with a few hundred thousand in
> places like WY. We need a system that accurately reflects the
> electorate, including representation for independent and third
> party voters.
>
> 4) Retooling our Electoral College is a good idea, but this measure
> does not overhaul the entire system, and focuses only on the
> nations largest state. Greens support a complete electoral reform
> program, not a piece-meal project that does not address the
> disparities faced by third parties.
>
> In short, I spoke against this measure. We do not have a fully
> fleshed out position yet, but the above talking points may be a
> good place to start. I will contact Steven Hill and others at the
> Center for Voting and Democracy to see if they have any other
> salient points.
>
> peace,
> ssuan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Drew Johnson <JamBoi at Greens.org>
>> Sent: Sep 21, 2007 3:01 PM
>> To: gpus-del at lists.cagreens.org, cal-forum at marla.cagreens.org
>> Subject: [G-C-F] Fwd: GPCA position on electoral votes by
>> congressional district???
>>
>> Carl Romanelli, 2006 U.S. Senate candidate of the GP of PA asks the
>> question of the GPCA:
>>
>> What is the California Green Party position (if any) regarding the
>> proposal to award electoral votes by congressional district,
>> rather than
>> winner take all? I really like the congressional district idea, as
>> I see
>> it as a way for
>> Greens to gain electoral votes with the right candidate.
>>
>> I am aware of the Dems fear tactics {on this issus} and we SHOULD
>> scare
>> them. We should work for our goals, not theirs. After the clear and
>> distinct pattern of Dems working to destroy us, we should not care
>> that
>> they may not elect their corporate candidate. If California is
>> successful
>> in gaining electoral votes for Greens, we can then make the case
>> for CD
>> based propositions in other states. At least awarding by CD is
>> somewhat
>> proportional. Further, it may turn out that the Green electors from
>> California are the ones who decide who the next president will
>> be. That
>> would be a great accomplishment for the party. I really want the
>> Democrats to be afraid of us. Passing this in California would
>> really
>> freak them out. That would be cool with me. Maybe then they would
>> stop
>> kicking us. Worse still is when we let them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------- Original Message
>> ----------------------------
>> Subject: Re: California Question
>> From: "Carl Romanelli" <cjromanellii at yahoo.com>
>> Date: Fri, September 21, 2007 14:34
>> To: "Drew Johnson" <JamBoi at Greens.org>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>>
>> Yes, please forward the question. I am aware of the Dems fear
>> tactics and
>> we SHOULD scare them. We should work for our goals, not theirs.
>> After
>> the clear and distinct pattern of Dems working to destroy us, we
>> should
>> not care that they may not elect their corporate candidate. If
>> California
>> is successful in gaining electoral votes for Greens, we can then
>> make the
>> case for CD based propositions in other states. At least awarding
>> by CD
>> is somewhat proportional. Further, it may turn out that the Green
>> electors from California are the ones who decide who the next
>> president
>> will be. That would be a great accomplishment for the party. I
>> really
>> want the Democrats to be afraid of us. Passing this in California
>> would
>> really freak them out. That would be cool with me. Maybe then
>> they would
>> stop kicking us. Worse still is when we let them. Thanks for your
>> help,
>> Drew.
>> Blessings and love,
>> Carl
>>
>> Drew Johnson <JamBoi at Greens.org> wrote:
>> Hey Carl,
>>
>> Personally I like the idea especially if it were applied in
>> several of the
>> large states simultaneously, but I have to say there's been a LOT of
>> Dmocratic fear mongering about it in this state. I don't really
>> know what
>> the thoughts of the delegation are on that. I'd be willing to forward
>> your question on to the delegation if you want me to. Do you want
>> me to?
>>
>>
>> Green is Connection!
>>
>> Drew
>>
>>
>> On Fri, September 21, 2007 12:41, Carl Romanelli wrote:
>>> Hi Drew,
>>> Quick question, if you can answer it: What is the California Green
>>> Party position (if any) regarding the proposal to award electoral
>>> votes by congressional district, rather than winner take all?
>>> I really like the congressional district idea, as I see it as a
>>> way for
>>> Greens to gain electoral votes with the right candidate.
>>> Thanks if you can help. Actually, thanks even if you can't help.
>>> Peace,
>>> Carl
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpus-del mailing list
> gpus-del at lists.cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpus-del
> http://cagreens.org/delegates/
>
> Have You Hugged Your Delegate Today?
_______________________________________________
gpus-del mailing list
gpus-del at lists.cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpus-del
http://cagreens.org/delegates/
Have You Hugged Your Delegate Today?
--
JamBoi
http://www.greencommons.org/blog/63
"Peaceable: the ability to interact peacefully. A skill set similar to
social or emotional intelligence that is unfortunately rare in today's
American culture, but can be developed by all. The Green Parties need to
lead the way in Peaceableness."
_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20070922/80c0c1b4/attachment.html>
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list