[statecom-discuss] Chuck on fusion, et al

[BillCunningham]

If I had seen David's reply first, I would have confined my remarks to agreeing with his.

-----Original Message-----
>From: david rolde <davidrolde at yahoo.com>
>Sent: Jul 17, 2006 5:01 PM
>To: Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
>Cc: chuck.turner at cityofboston.gov
>Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Chuck on fusion, et al
>
>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 
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss


Bill Cunningham