[statecom-discuss] Chuck on fusion, et al

[david rolde]

I generally agree with Chuck on most things. But he
hasn't convinced me on this issue. My opposition to
fusion voting is a matter of principle not simply of
strategy. I do believe that fusion voting is promoting
a principle that we disagree with. If I did not
believe that fusion voting is wrong in principle then,
depending on strategic considerations, I might agree
with Chuck about not taking a position or might even
support fusion or might still oppose fusion. But I do
believe that we should oppose fusion voting as a
matter of principal. And here is why:

Our government's method of selecting people to hold
powerful offices is by allowing the citizens to vote
for individual persons. Given this fact,  it is not
right to list a candidate more than once on the
ballot. A vote on either line is still a vote for the
same candidate. Listing the candidate more than once
provides a false illusion of choice.  We already have
too much false illusion of choice since we often are
presented with more than one candidate who basically
agree on everything and who work for the same
corporate interests. But fusion voting would add a
whole new dimension of illusory choice.

I think it is very important to remember that the
concept of fusion voting is not identical with the
concept of cross-endorsement.  I am all for
cross-endorsement. There is no reason why any party
should not be allowed to endorse whatever candidate
they want, even a candidate who belongs to another
party. Cross-endorsement is already allowed under
Massachusetts law. But the candidate's name should
only appear once on the ballot since the candidate is
a specific individual person. I am definitely in favor
of GRP working with other third parties to endorse
each other's candidates when appropriate. But in such
a case we would all have to get behind the same
candidate and same ballot choice, not list the
candidate twice and vie for which line people would
vote on. It is possible, though unlikely, that some
situation could come up where I would think we should
even endorse a major party candidate. But again this
would be because that candidate is the right choice,
not so that we could provide an illusory choice of the
same person on another line on the ballot.  

So from those GRP members who think we should not
oppose fusion voting because it is not a matter of
principle, I would like to hear a refutation of my
argument, or I would like to hear some principled
reason why we should support fusion. Otherwise we are
at the point where some GRP members are telling us to,
for the sake of strategy, abandon a principled
position against fusion voting.

I think the strategy considerations are obviously
important to some GRP members. And I think we should
have a meeting to talk about the strategy
considerations as well as the principled
considerations regarding fusion voting.  I keep
hearing that there are lots of people who share our
values, or who are our allies on many issues, who are
strong proponents of fusion voting.  I don't know
these people well. I'd like to know who they are. And
I think we should have a meeting with them to discuss
principled arguments for and against the concept of
listing candidates more than once on the ballot,
whether listing candidates more than once on the
ballot is really necessary for cross-party
cooperation, whether we really are on the same page on
most issues, and whether our taking a principled
position opposing fusion voting would really cause
them to become unable to work with us on issues that
we agree on. Why is fusion voting not something we
could agree to disagree on?

Regarding Bill Fletcher and Danny Glover and their
inside/outside strategy: I have serious disagreements
with Fletcher and Glover on several issues including
the inside/outside strategy.  I think that working
within the Democratic Party is often
counter-productive and generally at best a waste of
time. However even if we respect the work of someone
who shares our values but who chooses to work from
within the Democratic Party, for example by working to
try to get good candidates nominated in the Democratic
Party primaries; I don't understand how having
candidates listed more than once on ballots would be
something that would help such a person reform the
Democratic Party.  I think the pro-fusion argument is
that in campaigning for the primary election, the
candidate could tell voters that if she is nominated
then a third party will also endorse her and she will
get more votes in the general election.  But a third
party could endorse a major party candidate even
without multiple listings on the ballot. If a
candidate is good enough to endorse and vote for then
she should be endorsed or voted for - it shouldn't
matter if the candidate  is listed only once or more
than once on the ballot. What we have seen in New York
with fusion voting is the spectacle of a supposedly
progressive third party endorsing Democrats like
Hillary Clinton, i.e., even the worst sorts of
Democrats, not better people getting nominated as
Democrats. Clearly, listing an evil candidate twice on
separate lines with the name of an allegedly
progressive party next to the candidate's name on one
of the lines is sheer trickery.

The time is getting short for us to be able to
influence the language printed on the ballot in
opposition to the fusion voting initiative, so we do
need to try to resolve our disagreements about fusion
voting soon one way or another.  I hope there can be a
meeting to talk about fusion voting soon. We may be
having a State Committee meeting on August 6 where
this could be decided. So a discussion meeting about
fusion voting before then would be good.

I do greatly respect Chuck Turner, and I focus a lot
of my effort on trying to get GRP to work on issues
that Chuck works on and places importance on. So some
of the frustration I feel about all this opposition
(not specifically from Chuck) to our taking a position
opposing fusion voting is that it makes us spend more
energy discussing fusion voting and less energy on
more important issues. Our electoral system is
extremely corrupt to the point where it is
questionable if we should even be involved in it at
all. (I thought it was hillarious when the speaker who
followed Chuck at the recent rally in Quincy in
support of the Quincy 4 said that the fact that Chuck
could be elected to Boston City Council is evidence
that the American system of democracy is working
great. I think Chuck being in office is a pleasant
aberration that was only achieved with a lot of hard
work). So opposing fusion voting, which will make our
electoral system go from extremely bad to even a
little bit more extremely bad, is not the most
important issue we face.  There are horrendous
oppressions and wars and terror and starvation and
hopelessness going on.  However I do feel that
opposing fusion voting is a principled position, and I
have to say so, and I hope that GRP will be able to
take this position. 

- David Rolde, GRP Secretary

--- Merelice <merelice at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Friday, July 7, Chuck tried to email his fusion
> statement to Ron in
> time for what would have been our July 9 StateCom
> meeting. It did not
> arrive. On Friday, July 14, he tried to email it to
> me. It again did
> not arrive. Today his office sent it to me from a
> different email
> address, and it arrived! Chuck addressed his
> statement to StateCom and
> at his request, I am sharing it with you. I have
> attached it in rtf
> (rich text format) and have pasted it below.
> 
> Mel King has been and continues to be public and
> official in his
> support of fusion. He does not represent himself as
> a spokesperson for
> the GRP, but he can legitimately speak on behalf of
> what was the
> Rainbow Coalition Party since we did, at one time,
> seek fusion
> legislation (with the hopes of partnering with the
> Mass. Greens on
> fusion candidates!).
> 
> I would sincerely hope that anyone (including Grace,
> as a nominated
> candidate) who speaks against fusion is clear that
> they are speaking
> for themselves and not the party. Our slate is not
> in agreement on
> this since Jill, like Chuck, would prefer that the
> party stay neutral.
> This is viewed as important if we intend to campaign
> in the very
> communities that Grace says she is representing and
> targeting.
> 
> Some background: This is the THIRD time a proposal
> about fusion has
> come to StateCom. Obviously it did not get enough
> priority in previous
> attempts to produce an official Party postion. When
> I was an elected
> official of the Party, I was certainly aware of
> opposition to fusion
> within the party, but I am not comfortable with
> characterizing it in
> terms of "the elected leadership of this party has
> pretty consistently
> been against fusion." If that were clear-cut, we
> would have taken an
> official position by now.
> 
> Please do not lose sight of the fact that we are
> discussing not just
> fusion itself, but also the effect of having the GRP
> take an official
> position regarding fusion. And in that context, I
> present Chuck's
> statement for your consideration.
> Sincerely, Merelice
> 
> 
> Statement to the Green Rainbow Party State Committee
> regarding the Fusion Issue
> 
>    Chuck Turner
> 
> Boston City Councilor
> 
>       District 7
> 
> While I have been following the email discussion on
> fusion, I have not
> taken part. However, given the fact that the state
> committee is
> prepared to take a position opposing the Fusion
> Ballot question, I
> thought it appropriate for me to state my position
> and make a request.
> Let me state my request first. I strongly urge you
> to not take a
> position on the fusion question.
> 
> There are a number of reasons why I think that not
> taking a position
> on fusion is appropriate and important.
> 
> First, while I believe the strength of the
> progressive community has
> been increasing in the recent past, I think that it
> is very important
> that to the extent possible, we try to avoid fights
> within the
> progressive community in order to maximize our
> strength. This does not
> mean that we should ignore principles in the
> interest of unity.
> Operational unity focused on unprincipled positions
> is not unity but
> hypocrisy. However, I do not believe that the fusion
> issue is raising
> an issue of principle that the Green Rainbow Party
> opposes.
> 
> Second, the Green Rainbow Party is committed to
> strengthening the
> rights of participation in the voting process for
> all. While many on
> the state committee have strategic concerns, I do
> not believe that
> those positions rise to the level of principled
> concerns. However, to
> take a position against fusion would suggest that
> the fusion process
> is promoting a principle we disagree with. This I
> believe would lead
> to tension with those who are our allies without
> advancing the
> principled work of the party.
> 
> Third, while I understand that there is fear that
> this will enable the
> Party to be taken over on the one hand or kept in
> the designation
> category on the other, I don't agree. I believe
> that, in spite of the
> New York example, our future as a Party is
> determined by what we do.
> There are always challenges from within and without,
> but if there is a
> commitment to do the work necessary to keep the
> Party alive and
> healthy, we should not fear fusion.
> 
> Fourth, an argument has been made that this is a
> Democratic Party
> smokescreen to dilute Third Parties. While I can't
> speak to the New
> York experience, my understanding is that the fusion
> ballot issue is
> not getting support from mainline Democrats in
> Massachusetts which
> would suggest that this is not a Party initiative.
> 
> Fifth, I am intrigued by the issue focus of the
> fusion strategy which
> seems similar to what Fletcher and Glover have been
> suggesting. I
> think that in our efforts to increase our
> effectiveness as
> progressives we should not fight initiatives which
> may broaden our
> strategy perspective.
> 
> Finally, I apologize for weighing in so late in the
> effort but as I
> have thought about the consequences of our actions,
> my belief that I
> need to speak to the issue has increased. The
> consequences I refer to
> are the tensions and confusion that a Green Rainbow
> position against
> fusion will bring among those whose support is
> needed on a broad
> variety of issues beyond fusion such as IRV.
> > _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com