[Sosfbay-discuss] Fair Elections Act

[Jim Stauffer]

We had this discussion at the state meeting a few years back when this 
initiative was first making the rounds.

What I remember of the discussion is that it definitely treats minor 
parties as second-class citizens -- higher threshold and less funding.

But, there was simply no way the Republicrats would allow equality. We 
are basically taking what we can get.

But the non-partisan groups involved with this are sympathetic to our 
complaints, providing an opening to revisit the issue in the future.

The eternal question in politics is whether to compromise and take a 
small step forward, or hold out for your position. That can be a tough call.

Jim



Palm Haven Handyman wrote:
> Wes,
> 
> You rock!  Thanks for giving me ammunition, at least a simplified 
> understanding of what is going on.
> 
> If anyone has a substantially different take on this, I would love to
>  also have that in my back pocket, so to speak, for going to this
> meeting...
> 
> Also, I DO still like the idea of presenting a bit of imagery for the
>  crowd - a group of greens, dressed somewhat alike, standing in
> physical proximity - as a show.  Hey, look, the green party is here!
> 
> I still think that our best chance for recruiting is at mainstream 
> democratic events, capture the hearts and minds (and voter 
> registrations) of left-leaning demos....
> 
> Roy III
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Wes Rolley <wrolley at charter.net 
> <mailto:wrolley at charter.net>> wrote:
> 
> Palm Haven Handyman wrote:
> 
> Wes,
> 
> Please dumb it down for me.  Should I be supporting this thing or
> agin it?
> 
> I favor electoral reform.
> 
> My "dumb it down" is really that the devil is in the details and that
> we should have gone through the details before jumping in and 
> supporting this. However, endorsing the meeting is OK if we think 
> that there will be substantive discussion.
> 
> So, here is the crux of the matter.
> 
> 1. This is not a truly fair-to-all-parties proposition.  It favors 
> larger parties. 2.  The Green Party should be considered to be on the
> cusp.  Maybe this is a tipping point for us. The results could help /
> hinder the Green Party depending on how well we can organize and
> execute a real plan to elect a Secretary of State in 2014.  The goal
> would be to get 20K people to contribute $5 for a Green Party 
> Candidate. 3.  If you don't think that we are ready for the big time,
> then you should be "agin it". 4.  If you think that favoring larger
> parties is patently unfair, then that is another reason to be "agin
> it."
> 
> So... it the Green Party a "larger party"? Can we get 20K Greens to 
> donate $5?
> 
> Can we get a credible candidate to run for Secretary of State in the 
> next two elections?
> 
> In the 2006 election, we had good candidate.  In fact, Forrest Hill 
> presented the best plan for re-apportionment / revising the state 
> legislature that has yet been put forward for ANY party.  It was 
> simple, easy to understand, and it would have worked. If we can't get
> a constitutional convention passed, then Hill's plan should be
> revived.
> 
> Wes
> 
> 
> -- "Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you 
> don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
> 
> 
> Wes Rolley 17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 
> http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Greenbuilder CA General Contractor B #756438
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ sosfbay-discuss
> mailing list sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org 
> http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss