<div> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dear Green Friends, <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
I confess, my knee-jerk reaction was to join the Democrats and oppose this measure as yet another power grab by the Rethugs. <br>
<br>
But then, after reading these e-mails, I had second thoughts. <br>
<br>
Why should Greens help bailout the damned California Democrats? <br>
<br>
What's in it for us? <br>
<br>
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. <br>
</font></div>
<div> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Alex Walker <br>
</font></div>
<div> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</font></div>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Drew Johnson <JamBoi@Greens.org><br>
To: sosfbay-discuss@cagreens.org<br>
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:21 pm<br>
Subject: [Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: GPCA position on electoral votes by congressional district???<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_1_7dbd42a4-1eb6-471f-8f16-3665c4d23223" style="margin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt><br>
<br>
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------<br>
Subject: Re: [gpus-del] [G-C-F] Fwd: GPCA position on electoral votes by<br>
congressional district???<br>
From: "Dana Silvernale"<br>
Date: Fri, September 21, 2007 22:13<br>
To: "Delegates from GPCA to GPUS"<br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
I fully agree with Susan.<br>
<br>
In addition, I am opposed to any winner-take-all system, whether by<br>
state or by congressional district. Neither represents the diversity<br>
of the people. I would like to see proportional representation based<br>
in grassroots participatory democracy. There are excellent models for<br>
that in practice in South America. A description of one such model is<br>
in a book recommended to me by Noam Chomsky, Lula and the Workers'<br>
Party. The book also does a good job of describing how to build a<br>
base of support for a party seeking to challenge the parties in power.<br>
<br>
Dana Silvernale<br>
Humboldt Green Party<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sep 21, 2007, at 4:23 PM, <a href="mailto:funking@mindspring.com">funking@mindspring.com</a> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I sent out a query a few weeks ago about this, after getting a<br>
> media call wanting our reaction.<br>
><br>
> The points I made were:<br>
><br>
> 1) This does nothing to promote Green party backed election<br>
> reforms, such as the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting and<br>
> Proportional Representation;<br>
><br>
> 2) A possible negative effect on the CA GP would be the spreading<br>
> of the spoiler issue around the presidential race to the<br>
> Congressional District level, which COULD impact our ability to run<br>
> successful local campaigns and win (in other words, people would<br>
> not vote for local Greens if they were pissed off/scared about the<br>
> Presidential candidate potentially 'spoiling' the race their home<br>
> Congressional district).<br>
><br>
> 3) Republicans are already over represented in both Federal houses,<br>
> due to the fact that many red states are sparsley populated and<br>
> each Congresperson represents far fewer voters than those in large<br>
> states. In CA and NY, Congres folk represent upwards of a million<br>
> constituents per district, compared with a few hundred thousand in<br>
> places like WY. We need a system that accurately reflects the<br>
> electorate, including representation for independent and third<br>
> party voters.<br>
><br>
> 4) Retooling our Electoral College is a good idea, but this measure<br>
> does not overhaul the entire system, and focuses only on the<br>
> nations largest state. Greens support a complete electoral reform<br>
> program, not a piece-meal project that does not address the<br>
> disparities faced by third parties.<br>
><br>
> In short, I spoke against this measure. We do not have a fully<br>
> fleshed out position yet, but the above talking points may be a<br>
> good place to start. I will contact Steven Hill and others at the<br>
> Center for Voting and Democracy to see if they have any other<br>
> salient points.<br>
><br>
> peace,<br>
> ssuan<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Drew Johnson <<a href="mailto:JamBoi@Greens.org">JamBoi@Greens.org</a>><br>
>> Sent: Sep 21, 2007 3:01 PM<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:gpus-del@lists.cagreens.org">gpus-del@lists.cagreens.org</a>, <a href="mailto:cal-forum@marla.cagreens.org">cal-forum@marla.cagreens.org</a><br>
>> Subject: [G-C-F] Fwd: GPCA position on electoral votes by<br>
>> congressional district???<br>
>><br>
>> Carl Romanelli, 2006 U.S. Senate candidate of the GP of PA asks the<br>
>> question of the GPCA:<br>
>><br>
>> What is the California Green Party position (if any) regarding the<br>
>> proposal to award electoral votes by congressional district,<br>
>> rather than<br>
>> winner take all? I really like the congressional district idea, as<br>
>> I see<br>
>> it as a way for<br>
>> Greens to gain electoral votes with the right candidate.<br>
>><br>
>> I am aware of the Dems fear tactics {on this issus} and we SHOULD<br>
>> scare<br>
>> them. We should work for our goals, not theirs. After the clear and<br>
>> distinct pattern of Dems working to destroy us, we should not care<br>
>> that<br>
>> they may not elect their corporate candidate. If California is<br>
>> successful<br>
>> in gaining electoral votes for Greens, we can then make the case<br>
>> for CD<br>
>> based propositions in other states. At least awarding by CD is<br>
>> somewhat<br>
>> proportional. Further, it may turn out that the Green electors from<br>
>> California are the ones who decide who the next president will<br>
>> be. That<br>
>> would be a great accomplishment for the party. I really want the<br>
>> Democrats to be afraid of us. Passing this in California would<br>
>> really<br>
>> freak them out. That would be cool with me. Maybe then they would<br>
>> stop<br>
>> kicking us. Worse still is when we let them.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ---------------------------- Original Message<br>
>> ----------------------------<br>
>> Subject: Re: California Question<br>
>> From: "Carl Romanelli" <<a href="mailto:cjromanellii@yahoo.com">cjromanellii@yahoo.com</a>><br>
>> Date: Fri, September 21, 2007 14:34<br>
>> To: "Drew Johnson" <<a href="mailto:JamBoi@Greens.org">JamBoi@Greens.org</a>><br>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>> -----<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, please forward the question. I am aware of the Dems fear<br>
>> tactics and<br>
>> we SHOULD scare them. We should work for our goals, not theirs.<br>
>> After<br>
>> the clear and distinct pattern of Dems working to destroy us, we<br>
>> should<br>
>> not care that they may not elect their corporate candidate. If<br>
>> California<br>
>> is successful in gaining electoral votes for Greens, we can then<br>
>> make the<br>
>> case for CD based propositions in other states. At least awarding<br>
>> by CD<br>
>> is somewhat proportional. Further, it may turn out that the Green<br>
>> electors from California are the ones who decide who the next<br>
>> president<br>
>> will be. That would be a great accomplishment for the party. I<br>
>> really<br>
>> want the Democrats to be afraid of us. Passing this in California<br>
>> would<br>
>> really freak them out. That would be cool with me. Maybe then<br>
>> they would<br>
>> stop kicking us. Worse still is when we let them. Thanks for your<br>
>> help,<br>
>> Drew.<br>
>> Blessings and love,<br>
>> Carl<br>
>><br>
>> Drew Johnson <<a href="mailto:JamBoi@Greens.org">JamBoi@Greens.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Hey Carl,<br>
>><br>
>> Personally I like the idea especially if it were applied in<br>
>> several of the<br>
>> large states simultaneously, but I have to say there's been a LOT of<br>
>> Dmocratic fear mongering about it in this state. I don't really<br>
>> know what<br>
>> the thoughts of the delegation are on that. I'd be willing to forward<br>
>> your question on to the delegation if you want me to. Do you want<br>
>> me to?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Green is Connection!<br>
>><br>
>> Drew<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, September 21, 2007 12:41, Carl Romanelli wrote:<br>
>>> Hi Drew,<br>
>>> Quick question, if you can answer it: What is the California Green<br>
>>> Party position (if any) regarding the proposal to award electoral<br>
>>> votes by congressional district, rather than winner take all?<br>
>>> I really like the congressional district idea, as I see it as a<br>
>>> way for<br>
>>> Greens to gain electoral votes with the right candidate.<br>
>>> Thanks if you can help. Actually, thanks even if you can't help.<br>
>>> Peace,<br>
>>> Carl<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> gpus-del mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:gpus-del@lists.cagreens.org">gpus-del@lists.cagreens.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpus-del" target="_blank">http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpus-del</a><br>
> <a href="http://cagreens.org/delegates/" target="_blank">http://cagreens.org/delegates/</a><br>
><br>
> Have You Hugged Your Delegate Today?<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gpus-del mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gpus-del@lists.cagreens.org">gpus-del@lists.cagreens.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpus-del" target="_blank">http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/gpus-del</a><br>
<a href="http://cagreens.org/delegates/" target="_blank">http://cagreens.org/delegates/</a><br>
<br>
Have You Hugged Your Delegate Today?<br>
<br>
-- <br>
JamBoi<br>
<a href="http://www.greencommons.org/blog/63" target="_blank">http://www.greencommons.org/blog/63</a><br>
"Peaceable: the ability to interact peacefully. A skill set similar to<br>
social or emotional intelligence that is unfortunately rare in today's<br>
American culture, but can be developed by all. The Green Parties need to<br>
lead the way in Peaceableness."<br>
</tt></pre>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_1_7dbd42a4-1eb6-471f-8f16-3665c4d23223 -->
<div id="AOLMsgPart_3_7dbd42a4-1eb6-471f-8f16-3665c4d23223" style="margin: 0px; font-family: Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>_______________________________________________<br>
sosfbay-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sosfbay-discuss@cagreens.org">sosfbay-discuss@cagreens.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.cagreens.org/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss</a>
</tt></pre>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_3_7dbd42a4-1eb6-471f-8f16-3665c4d23223 -->
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free <a href="http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970" target="_blank">AOL Mail</a>!<br/>
</div>