[statecom-discuss] Chuck on fusion, et al

[BillCunningham]

My concern is not so much that people have different positions, but that all the discussion is about party advantage and none is about the principle, that is how it affects the voter.

I know that I could get a few folks together and become the official opposition, and thus get to write the opposition statement. But as a member of the GRP SC, I feel that would not be my right, and it would undermine the party, because it has not taken a position.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>
>Sent: Jul 17, 2006 7:04 PM
>To: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>, Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
>Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Chuck on fusion, et al
>
>Greetings,
>Chuck called a little while ago to confirm that his office had been
>able to send me his statement. I reported to him that I had forwarded
>it to StateCom.
>
>He added an offer to talk with anyone individually who might wish to
>discuss this further with him.
>
>Bill, I share your frustration, but on the other side; I have not felt
>that you have heard or responded to our concerns, just as you feel we
>have not heard yours. I thought Chuck directly addressed some of the
>concerns he has heard. If you feel he has not yet addressed yours, I
>urge you to call him and speak with him directly. I have done all I
>know how to do to foster communication on this subject. And Mel
>devoted two of his Sunday brunches to the subject, with both GRP and
>fusion folks present (not to mention the frequent random discussions
>that have taken place there). Even if people end up agreeing to
>disagree, it would be good at least to feel heard.
>
>Regarding the ballot description, if there is a deadline concern, I
>believe I have seen opposition statements written by individuals as
>well as organizations.
>Merelice
>
>On 7/17/06, BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 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


Bill Cunningham