Proposals for 2005 Winter State Committee Meeting

Proposals for the State Committee meeting can be submitted, revised, and commented on here. The State Committee meeting is on DAYNAME MONTH DATE, YEAR (TBD). State Committee proceedures say that the last day to submit anything here is MEETING DAY MINUS 2 WEEKS.

Any two members of the State and Administrative Committees, or any Green-Rainbow Local, may submit a proposal for the State Committee to consider.

If you have proposals that are ready to post, do not hesitate as it gives people more of a chance to read it and comment on it ahead of time and possibly improve it.

If you have the proposal already in a word processor document, please attach the document at the bottom of your post to facilitate the process of making the proposal package for the meeting.

Please read them completely so you are prepared for clarifying questions, discussion, and decisionmaking. If you have comments ahead of time, you can post a follow up here and you can contact the sponsors of the proposal.

Oppose Iraq War for Oil and Empire Building
Wednesday January 26, @11:46AM by Peter White, Patsy Altieri
from the Membership committee.
Tha Green Party movement locally and nationally should provide leadership to the peace and justice movement to oppose the Iraq War, bring our troops home immediately, and call for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney for war for oil crimes.
Read More (5 comments)

Endorse Dan Kontoff for State Rep
Sunday January 09, @11:58PM by David Rolde
from the Committee to Elect Dan Kontoff committee.
Dan "the Bagelman" Kontoff is a prominent long time peace & justice activist in Boston and a Green-Rainbow Party member. In the past he has been a candidate for Boston City Council. He will be a great state rep.
Read More (1 comment)

Proposal to initiate a state-wide party theme to ABOLISH POVERTY
Sunday January 09, @11:57PM by Michael Gainer and Lisa Richards
from the Abolish Poverty committee.
In order to provide a context for grassroots organizing, increase opportunities for new and existing members to contribute to an issue based campaign, promote the ideal of movement building, and develop an identity for our party that highlights our values and platform, we propose initiating a state-wide theme to Abolish Poverty.
Read More (2 comments)

Sponsorship and Organizing of a statewide #2 March To Abolish Poverty
Sunday January 09, @11:40PM by Lisa Richards and Grace Ross
from the Abolish Poverty committee.
Summary:
As part of our commitment to fight poverty in Massachusetts, the GRP agrees to be a primary sponsor of a eighteen day, history-making march through the lowest income communities of Massachusetts to help bring together anti-poverty activists, educate the public, register voters, provide visibility for the platform of the Green-Rainbow Party.

Read More (1 comment)

Membership Growth Strategy Proposal
Sunday January 09, @10:37PM by Ron Francis and Michael Gainer
from the Membership and Diversity Committee committee.
Background: About 6 months ago the membership
committee began to look at the question of “how do we plan to build the membership ?” and “what kinds of organizing activities will help attain measurable growth ?” The committee does not pretend to have all of the answers,… but nevertheless this is what we did
Read More

Position on "fusion" voting
Wednesday December 29, @02:34PM by Rich Zitola
Although this topic has been the subject of debate for quite some time,
immediate action via this proposal was inspired by the recent discussion
on Boston Indymedia. In light of proposed legislation, it seems
appropriate for the party to take an offical stance on "fusion" voting,
where political parties are given the option of nominating candidates
from other parties. I suggest that the GRP stand in opposition to fusion
voting on the grounds that it will lead to fewer choices for voters,
being therefore incompatible with the principles of true democracy.


Original article:
---------------
"Proposed bill would allow two parties to endorse the same candidate,
giving voters more choices"
by Rand Wilson
Email: rand (nospam) mindspring.com (unverified)
Phone: 617 989-8045
Address: 21 Fellows Street, Boston, MA 02119 08 Dec 2004

A bill proposing to repeal the Commonwealth's ban on "cross endorsement"
voting was filed in the House of Representatives on December 1. It is
titled "An Act Providing Voters with More Ballot Choices."

Lifting the ban would allow two political parties to nominate and vote
for the same candidate. This type of voting helps minor parties to build
their strength, while avoiding the common pitfalls of the
winner-take-all, two-party system. Supporters of a minor political
party's platform are often reluctant to waste their vote on a candidate
with no chance of winning - or in a close vote - inadvertently defeating
the major party candidate who more nearly shares their views.

"Many voters are dissatisfied with the choice of candidates offered in
elections. The current law relegates independent candidates and third
parties to the role of spoilers and citizens who support them too often
end up wasting their votes," said State Representative Patricia Jehlen
who sponsored the bill. "Repealing the state's ban on cross-endorsement
allows new parties to present additional choices and permits voters to
make their voices heard while still having their votes count for a
viable candidate."

Current co-sponsors include Representatives Byron Rushing, Anne Paulsen,
Ellen Story, Benjamin Swan and Senator Robert L. Hedlund. More
legislators are expected to co-sponsor prior to the Dec. 15 deadline.

Supporters of the cross endorsement legislation believe that it would
make Massachusetts elections more competitive and draw more voters into
the political process. Many labor unions and community organizations are
particularly supportive because the measure would allow minor parties to
hold major party candidates more accountable to their issues.

Minor political parties have been endorsing major party candidates in
New York for many years and have recently revived the practice in
Connecticut. Five other states also permit it.

The bill is backed by "More Choices, More Voices" a campaign group that
includes a dozen Massachusetts labor organizations and the Boston-based
community groups ACORN and City Life/Vida Urbana.

Copies of the legislation may be obtained from Rep. Jehlen at the
statehouse (617-722-2676) or from Rand Wilson at the above number.

# # #

[Editor's addition- Here is the bill verbatim!]

PETITIONERS:
Byron Rushing 9th Suffolk
Anne Paulsen 24th Middlesex
Ellen Story 3rd Hampshire
Robert L. Hedlund Plymouth/Norfolk
Benjamin Swan 11th Hampden

AN ACT AN ACT PROVIDING VOTERS WITH MORE BALLOT CHOICES

PREAMBLE: The people of Massachusetts expect and are entitled to
meaningful participation in the Commonwealth’s system of democracy,
based on the principle that all people have an equal say in the outcomes
of elections. Many voters are dissatisfied with the choice of candidates
offered in elections. The current law relegates independent candidates
and third parties to the role of spoilers and citizens who support them
too often end up wasting their votes. Repealing the State’s ban on
cross-endorsement allows new parties to present additional choices and
permits voters to make their voices heard while still having their votes
counted for a viable candidate.

SECTION 1:
Section 6 of chapter 53 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002
Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the second
paragraph. Section 48 of said chapter 53, as so appearing is hereby
amended by striking out the fourth paragraph.

SECTION 2:
Section 41 of chapter 54 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002
Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the fourth, fifth,
and sixth paragraphs and inserting in place thereof the following
paragraphs:
If a candidate shall receive the nomination of more than one party or
more than one political designation for the same office, the candidate’s
name shall appear once for each party or political designation received.
The candidate shall specify the order in which the party or political
designations will appear, provided that all parties shall be listed
before all political designations. The ballot shall allow voters to
select a candidate nominated by multiple parties or political
designations under the party or political designation ballot line of
their choice.

If technology allows, voting machines shall prevent a voter from voting
more than the number of times permitted for any one office. If a voter
votes for the same candidate for the same office on multiple party or
political designation lines, the ballot shall remain valid and shall be
counted as if the duplicate votes were a single vote for the candidate
on a line without a party or political designation.

When elections are held for a full term and a partial term of the same
office running concurrently, no person shall have their name printed on
the official ballot or on ballot labels for both the election to fill
the full term and the election to fill the partial term.

SECTION 3:
Section 13 of chapter 54 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2000
Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after “within the time
prescribed by section eleven for filing objections to certificates of
nomination and nomination papers” the following words: "or within six
days following any party’s primary elections with respect to the office,
regardless of whether the candidate sought nomination or was nominated
in such primary."




My response:
--------------

Re: Proposed bill would allow two parties to endorse the same candidate,
giving voters more choices
by Rich Zitola
rich (nospam) massirv.org (unverified) 24 Dec 2004

Fusion is a terrible idea for one simple reason: in reality, it gives
voters FEWER choices. For example, last November we had four parties and
four candidates, i.e. _four_ choices. If we had fusion, and the greens
nominated Kerry and the libertarians nominated Bush, we would have had
_two_ choices. It's that simple. Fusion leads to fewer choices.

The argument that fusion would allow third party voters to vote for a
major party candidate but stay in their own party is extremely weak at
best, misleading at worst. Let's say Kerry got 30% of his votes on the
Dem line and 70% of his votes on the Green line. Could you then conclude
that Kerry represents green values better than dem values? Of course
not. It would be misleading... here's an example: Kerry supports the
death penalty, greens strongly oppose it, dems waffle. In the case where
the split was 30/70 as I mentioned, undoubtedly someone would argue that
Kerry's strong support among greens indicates that most greens actually
support the death penalty. This muddies the waters even more, leads us
to fight amongst ourselves, and the result is the republicans win.

Even if we did accept the argument that fusion would still allow two
candidates to be considered "four choices" it still doesn't give us more
choices, as advertised. In that case we go from four to, um, "four".
Strike two.

Finally, any potential success of fusion depends heavily on the premise
that people actually would nominate candidates in other parties, based
on the argument that they are more "electable". If that person actually
felt that candidate genuinely reflected their values they would switch
parties themselves! A green member who was truly enthralled with Kerry
would most likely become a dem!

So even if we were to buy the argument that fusion will work because
people will compromise their values to support someone more "electable",
it leads us to the doomsday scenario: In 2008 the republicans nominate
Cheney. The dems, in desperation, go beyond the Gore/Kerry threshold of
"electability" and nominate... McCAIN!!! Fusion would then give us the
utopian vision of being able to vote for a republican as a republican, a
dem, or a green. How nice.

For all the reasons above, fusion is short-sighted, dangerous, and
anti-democratic. IRV is the only way to achieve the goal of re-uniting
progressives and finally put an end to the self-destructive bickering
the goes on between greens and progressive dems, while at the same time
genuinely giving voters a broader range of real choices on the ballot.

I hope you will all support the upcoming IRV campaign. I haven't updated
the MassIRV site since the Election Laws Committee hearing last
September, but things are brewing once again. Please keep an eye on
www.massirv.org for the latest news... January will be exciting!

-Rich Zitola
co-founder, MassIRV
former Green-Rainbow candidate for State Senate


Read More (4 comments)

Campaign for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
Wednesday December 29, @02:24PM by Nashua River Green-Rainbow, Rich Zitola
It is clear that one of the most significant hurdles to the growth of the Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts is the pervasive public perception that votes for third-party candidates are "wasted". Even worse is the fear of "spoiling" the election for arguably "progressive" candidates by splitting the support of progressive voters.

There is a simple and effective means to solve this problem, and put an end to many of the bitter arguments among progressive activists: Instant Runoff Voting. Simply stated, IRV is "an election method where voters can rank their candidate preferences instead of choosing just one". A beneficial side effect is that it virtually guarantees that elections will be won with the support of the majority of the voters. It promotes true democracy as voters can vote their true preferences without fear of unintended consequences. The recent experience of a successful IRV election in San Francisco is encouraging, and now the stage is set for significant advances here in Massachusetts.

The GRP will benefit greatly from a successful IRV campaign, not only by removing this hurdle, but by providing us with a means to focus our efforts and energy on a project with clear and concrete goals, leading to significant and tangible results. It is abundantly clear from our experience of past campaigns, namely Nader2000 and Stein2002, that active, vibrant campaigns are effective for building party membership, visibility, and support. The campaign experience, networking opportunities, and the establishment of working relationships with other political organizations that would result from a successful IRV campaign will be extremely valuable assets in future campaigns.

IRV enjoys widespread public support, as we've seen from a series of ballot questions. The three IRV bills filed during the last legislative session were brought to a hearing, but then died in study. Reps Story and Wolf have refiled their bills, and Rep Kaufman has introduced a new one calling for IRV in legislative races. Our best chance for progress is to agressively lobby for the passage of these bills. If we truly commit ourselves to this campaign, we can succeed.


Read More (2 comments)

gm foods intiative
Sunday December 19, @11:55PM by Jen Mazer , and others...
It is not natural to change the DNA of foods at all. It could make one sick. It is evil.
Read More (2 comments)

statewide IRV referendem
Sunday December 19, @11:25PM by Jen Mazer , and others...
Check out Boston IMC article. A possible law
was suggested that Massachusetts take up fusion.
This idea was totally onesided and against all
alternative parties. I am not saying this will happen; it was just a sugestion of a commentor
but it got me mad.
Read More

Open Nominations for GRP Representative to GPUS Presidential Campaign Support Committee
Sunday December 19, @09:00AM by Owen R. Broadhurst
For some time, I have been serving as a GRP representative to the PCSC in what has technically been an unofficial capacity since I have never been vetted. I have never sought to be vetted, and have no desire to serve in this capacity. My hope is for volunteers to replace me.

We can have, I believe (other can correct me should I be mistaken), up to three representatives to this GPUS working committee.

My belief is that a second is needed to open nominations.
Read More

Open Nominations for Observer to GPUS Peace Action Committee
Sunday December 19, @08:47AM by Owen R. Broadhurst
A state party has rights to not only name voting members to GPUS working committees, but also non-voting observers to the list. We have as party one candidate, at least, who would appreciate this privilege.
Read More (1 comment)

Open Nominations for GRP Representative to the GPUS Peace Action Committee
Sunday December 19, @08:43AM by Owen R. Broadhurst
David "Ebony" Barkley, being a duly elected GRP representative to the GPUS Coordinating Committee (CC), has- as GPUS bylaws allow him- been serving as our party representative to this GPUS working committee. While GPUS bylaws grant CC members eligibility to serve on any working committee they choose, it has been our party practice to vet all representatives to working groups of the GPUS. So, let's make this official.

I believe a second is needed in opening nominations.
Read More (1 comment)

Open Nominations for GRP Representative to UJP
Friday December 17, @09:23PM by Owen R. Broadhurst
With a move on the horizon, our present representative to United for Justice with Peace may shortly no longer be within any position to represent us. I believe a second to open nominations shall be necessary.
Read More (5 comments)

Open Nominations to GPUS Nominating Process Working Group
Friday December 17, @04:56PM by Owen R. Broadhurst
http://green.gpus.org/vote/displayproposal.php?proposalId=114

I believe a second to open nominations shall be required?
Read More (1 comment)