Binding 'No Candidate' on 2004 GPUS slate of presidential nominees
Saturday June 07, @04:24PM, by David Agnew
Subject : 2004 Presidential Election Strategy
Summary :
The membership convention of the GRPM directs its representatives to GPUS to propose to the GPUS that the slate of GPUS presidential nominees include a binding "No Candidate" choice, and that our GPUS representatives actively support this measure.
Text :
PROPOSAL:
The membership convention of the GRPM directs its representatives to GPUS to propose to the GPUS that the slate of GPUS presidential nominees include a binding "No Candidate" choice, and that our GPUS representatives actively support this measure.

WHY:
A) Because a significant number of Greens wish to work to defeat Bush rather than to promote a Green presidential candidate. These members deserve a voice in the party's presidential nomination process. As stated in the platform of the GRPM (Section 3.6), it is Party policy that voters should be afforded the fullest possible range of choice, even if that includes no candidate. Denying Greens who oppose fielding a Green Party presidential candidate in 2004 the opportunity to campaign for, or vote on this, runs counter to the GRPM platform, and, we believe, the key value of grassroots democracy.

B) Because we can, perhaps more effectively, build the Green Party without running a presidential candidate by: focusing on state, local, and congressional races, and by working on important issues such as election and health care reform. Building up from the grassroots is a strategy proven in Europe.

C) If a Green presidential candidate garnered fewer votes than Nader in 2000 and Bush lost, many would say that this happened because voters realized it was more important to beat Bush than to vote for a progressive candidate. Greens would be branded as "spoilers", despite a Democratic victory. Alternatively, if the Green candidate got more votes than Nader in 2000 and Bush won, the Greens would be blamed AND would be hugely resented, very possibly experiencing a drop in membership which might be difficult to reverse. When most of the states use IRV the spoiler effect will be eliminated, and we will discover what the true strength of the progressives is. Better to work for IRV in every state than to field a candidate for President in 2004.

Submitted by David Agnew (by consensus of the Cape Cod Green Party)
Reply

• Re: Binding 'No Candidate' on 2004 GPUS slate of presidential nominees
  Saturday June 07, @11:08PM, by Owen R. Broadhurst
  Platform Section 3.6 states plainly that it is "to force parties to put forth candidates and platforms acceptable to the people" that voters are to be given this opportunity. Given how voters in a general election are likely to find any candidate or platform unacceptable, it makes sense that we should continue pursuit of the provision of this option on general election ballots. The rationale for this proposal in no way suggests that any portion of our party platform is unacceptable to Green- Rainbow Party members. It is instead suggested that this option should be provided not "to force parties to put forth candidates and platforms acceptable to the people" where people must in instances of an internal Green Party selection process be viewed as Green-Rainbow members- but rather to force the party to select absolutely no candidate at all whatsoever.
  
  My belief is that it is inappropriate, therefore, to cite Platform Plank 3.6 within this instance as it is not for the purpose cited in Platform Plank 3.6 that passage of this proposal is being sought.
  
  Bylaws Section 13.2 notes the following: "The Green-Rainbow Party will seek and maintain statewide ballot access as allowed by state law. This will include, but is not limited to, running candidates for local, regional, state, and federal offices in order to gain and retain ballot access."
  
  My belief is that this proposal contravenes Bylaws Section 13.2, amendments to which I would not feel inclined to lend consent. My rationale for being inclined to withhold consent for such an amendment-
  and therefore this proposal- now follows:
  
  My belief is that the single most important and vital thing for Greens to continue doing is building the party, because it is THIS party- not any single other party- that is humanity's final and last chance to stop the creeping fascism that the Democratic Party has quite knowingly become complicit in implementing. The Democratic Party has had its chance to prove its worth. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to prevent Bush from ever securing the White House, and they failed. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to prevent Bush from ever having John Ashcroft as his Attorney General, and they failed. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to prevent Bush from ever having Gale Norton on his Cabinet, and they failed. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to prevent the Patriot Act from being passed, and they failed. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to prevent Bush from eviscerating environmental regulations, and they failed. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to prevent a tax give-away to the rich, and they failed. The Democratic Party had the numbers in the Senate to prevent a neo-colonial war with Iraq, and they failed.
  
  My contention is that they failed because they wanted to fail. I believe they failed because they were paid to fail. I believe they failed because their puppeteers told them to fail. If Greens fail to field a candidate in 2004, then the Greens will fail. We will fail because we will thereby lend our support and endorsement to the failure to challenge neo-conservative policy. We will fail because we shall thusly be lending our tacit support to what I construe to be fascism with a softer face. We will fail to be relevant. We will fail to be meaningful. We will fail to be the party that I joined. We will fail to become a party that is at all worth supporting.
  
  The Democratic Party has had opportunities after golden opportunities to demonstrate that a Green challenge would be both counterproductive and superfluous, and they have failed. They have failed and betrayed their progressive base for more than thirty years, and have amply demonstrated a strong desire to fail again. This did not have to be the case. It wasn't necessary for this to be the case. The Democratic Party could easily have deactivated the threat of a Green Party challenge. They merely had to pretend to be human, in my humble opinion. I strongly believe they didn't do that. They failed.
  
  I have been a great fan of the Lesbian Feminist thealogian, Dr. Sonia Johnson, now for many years- and it was with an eco-feminist ecosophy such as hers in mind that I became involved in the Green movement in the first place. I rather like what this pyromantic author had to say re: this-
  
  "Some people were shocked that I didn't vote in the 1988 election. I was shocked that they did. The day after, I overheard a conversation on a plane in which one man was lamenting to the other: `It seems to me that we never have a decent candidate any more, that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils every time. I can't understand it." If he had realized that by voting for the lesser of two evils, he helped create a world in which he would always have to vote for the lesser of two evils; if he had understood that by voting for evil at all, even if for a lesser evil, he was still voting for evil, and that since everyone who voted, voted for evil- either a lesser or greater one- surely there was no possible way to get anything but evil; if he had understood that what he was doing every moment of his life was determining future moments, he would have been shocked to see his collusion in the deteriorating political situation that he deplored. We cannot compromise our integrity and have a reality with integrity anymore than we can have peace by waging war."
  
  Voting evil encourages evil, and generates evil for years to come. Evil begets evil. As the first ecosophists of both the social and deep ecology movements had been inspired by the satyagrahi, so then am I. There can be no greater force on Earth than soul-force or conscience. I vote accordingly.
  
  We're not the spoilers, and I believe no one understanding the role of the Democrats in implementing Bush policies and proposals can seriously suggest that we have ever been spoilers. Indeed, I beleive no one is accusing us of being spoilers beyond those who want our party to disappear from the national stage, period, in any case. Let's not humor them.
  
  =============================
  
  I have no desire to find myself obstinate regarding this or any other proposal. If it can be demonstrated to my satisfaction that our party must disappear from the national stage, then I will happily support a proposal to have our GPUS delegates urge the dissolution of the GPUS.
  
  
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Binding 'No Candidate' on 2004 GPUS slate of presidential nominees
  Sunday June 08, @01:12AM, by Owen R. Broadhurst
  Where Bylaws Section 13.2 might not ordinarily seem to compel the fielding of a Presidential candidate, it should be noted that Bylaws Section 13.2 does require the party to seek and maintain statewide ballot access. Therefore, party compliance with Bylaws Section 13.2 requires the party to meet criteria set forth in MGL C. 50 Section 1:
  
  ""Political party'' shall apply to a party which at the preceding biennial state election polled for any office to be filled by all the voters of the commonwealth at least three percent of the entire vote cast in the commonwealth for such office, or which shall have enrolled, according to the first count submitted under section thirty-eight A of chapter fifty-three, a number of voters with its political designation equal to or greater than one percent of the entire number of voters registered in the commonwealth according to said count. Such parties shall be eligible to conduct primary elections at the next following biennial state election."
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Binding 'No Candidate' on 2004 GPUS slate of presidential nominees
  Tuesday June 10, @10:53AM, by James O'Keefe
  

  The membership convention of the GRPM directs its representatives to GPUS to propose to the GPUS that the slate of GPUS presidential nominees include a binding "No Candidate" choice, and that our GPUS representatives actively support this measure.

  I am unsure what you mean by "our GPUS representatives actively support this measure". I believe that you mean that our GPUS reps support this rules change, and not that we not run a presidential candidate. Am I correct?

  In Massachusetts, at least, there is no provision on the primary ballot for deciding not to run a candidate. There is a "No candidate" option, but that only means that the delegates to be selected are not assigned to any particular candidate. We could inform our members (and thus the major primary voters) that we are interpreting the definition to mean "Do not run a candidate", but some ambiguity will remain.

  Of course, placing such an option on the ballot, does allow voters who are not Green-Rainbows, to vote in our primary and shift the result so that we do not run a candidate.

  Finally, while I do not, personally, conceed the "spoiler" issue, what about states where the presidential race is clearly not in doubt (Massachusetts being one of those.) Should we not at least run a candidate in such states if only to retain our ballot status? This proposal would disallow this tactic.

  
  Reply