? Re: Owen's comments re [statecom-discuss] Chuck on fusion, et al

[david rolde]

Owen, when you say that you do not oppose fusion
efforts between independant progressive third parties,
are you talking about fusion voting specifically,
i.e., candidates being listed more than once on the
ballot, or are you just talking about
cross-endorsement, i.e., a candidate being endorsed by
more than one party but listed on the ballot more than
once?

Again cross-endorsement and fusion voting are not
identical concepts and should not be confused. It is
perfectly possible to favor cross-endorsement but
still be opposed to fusion voting. Cross-endorsement
can be effective without fusion voting. And frankly I
don't see how fusion voting would make
cross-endorsement more effective.  

- David



--- Owen Broadhurst <owen.broadhurst at gmail.com> wrote:

> I very much appreciate Chuck's letter. His words
> unfortunately do not
> alleviate my concerns, but he's correct that I do
> not oppose fusion efforts
> between independent progressive third parties on
> principle (others within
> our party might; I don't).
> 
> It is but my belief that this is very simply the
> wrong fusion proposal. I
> regret that its drafters did not approach our party
> prior to formulating the
> text of this initiative. I would have offered
> alternative language (which I
> do have on hand) that would institute a closed
> primary system, strip state
> committees of the power to replace "placeholder"
> candidates in district or
> local contests and hand that power to local party
> committees instead, and
> bar major party registrants from fielding themselves
> as independent or
> designation candidates.
> 
> I noted previously that I'm by no means wed to the
> notion of having this
> party campaign against the proposal. I do, however,
> believe that it would
> have a much better chance of success if it addressed
> the concerns of so very
> many party members and thus inspired doubters among
> us to work for it.
> 
> Whether the party opts to come out against it or
> not, however, there's
> simply no way that it could receive our party's
> official endorsement - and
> that's too bad. It might have were party
> consideration not an afterthought.
> It might have, if overtures were made for the party
> to have a role in the
> drafting of it.
> 
> I shall press no longer for the party to take an
> official stand against the
> proposal. I merely hope that doesn't bite us in the
> caboose. I believe its
> passage easily COULD bite us in the caboose, and I
> would hate like Hades to
> see that happen.
> 
> OB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/17/06, 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Owen R. Broadhurst
> Candidate for State Representative
> Third Hampden District
> http://www.owenbroadhurst.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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