[statecom-discuss] Re: [candidate-development] Re: [2006team]Voices worth li

[Melissa Harrell]

Irregardless of who's stroke of genius it actually is, we should take 
full advantage of it.

Colby Peterson wrote:
> A stroke I cannot take credit for.
>
> But I know Jill and others have expressed interest in revising the 
> language a bit.
>
> - Colbs
>
> On Nov 13, 2006, at 4:50 PM, Adam Sacks wrote:
>
>>
>> Living as we do in the world of sound bites, I think "Best-Choice 
>> Voting" (or "First-Choice" or "Top-Choice" or something like that) is 
>> a stroke of genius.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Colby Peterson <saphron at verizon.net>
>> To: Discussion List for StateCom members 
>> <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
>> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:39:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Re: [candidate-development] Re: 
>> [2006team]Voices worth li
>>
>> No- this is not a null point. But I think we're jumping ahead of
>> ourselves here.
>>
>> Fusion is a bargaining chip, we don't use it until we need to. And we
>> don't know if we need to yet.
>>
>> We must work with all political stripes to make IRV appear multi and
>> non-partisan. IRV should be appealing to everyone, as it eliminates
>> negative campaigning and the negative effects thereof (spoilers.)
>>
>>
>> What would an IRV commercial look like (and btw, I think we should
>> rebrand IRV into something friendlier like Best-Choice or Ranked-
>> Choice voting (runoff is confusing)?
>>
>>
>> ============
>>
>> "Hi, I'm [elected official] so-and-so, [party affiliation] from
>> [municipality] and I support Best-Choice Voting because [insert reason]"
>>
>> "And my name is [prominent political celebrity], and as a registered
>> [party affiliation], I support Best-Choice Voting because [insert
>> another reason]"
>>
>> Do that three more times (get all stripes covered) and finish off
>> with: "Vote yes on Best-Choice Voting: vote for candidates, not out
>> of fear" (or something like that)
>>
>>
>> ============
>>
>> The Green-Rainbow Party should not be the sole sponsor of this
>> initiative. If it is, I believe we will surely fail. This is a
>> populist reform, let's expand outward.
>>
>> - Colby
>>
>> On Nov 10, 2006, at 5:19 PM, <danthbagelman at msn.com>
>> <danthbagelman at msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> fusion did not pass Null point! let us move ahead!
>>>
>>>> From: Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>
>>>> Reply-To: Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-
>>>> discuss at green-rainbow.org>
>>>> To: "Discussion List for StateCom members" <statecom-discuss at green-
>>>> rainbow.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Re: [candidate-development] Re:
>>>> [2006team]Voices worth listening to (Globe column today in support
>>>> of Grace)
>>>> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:17:32 -0500
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we're against fusion. But if they promised to work for IRV AT
>>>> THE
>>>> SAME TIME (which is what Jamie is suggesting), would we at least
>>>> discuss the possibility?
>>>> Merelice
>>>>
>>>> On 11/10/06, John Walsh <john.walsh at umassmed.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Huh?
>>>>> I cannot do that.  The decision of the GRP is AGAINST fusion.
>>>>> So why would I ask Rand to work for fusion?
>>>>> jw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:03 PM, Jamie O'Keefe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you talk with Rand over the next week about whether the WFP
>>>>>> would be interested in joining forces to get either IRV or
>>>>> fusion and
>>>>>> IRV passed?  I have already asked him and haven't heard back.
>>>>> He is
>>>>>> probably too busy to answer, but before I forgot I thought I
>>>>> would ask
>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/9/06, John Walsh <john.walsh at umassmed.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> I think it is good to talk to them.  I count Rand Wilson as a
>>>>> friend,
>>>>>>> and I told him I wish him well personally but disagreed with
>>>>> WFP.  I
>>>>>>> do not think Rand will take any comments of mine very personally.
>>>>>>> In fact like our standard-bearers, Rand is a superb candidate
>>>>> - very
>>>>>>> effective as a spokesperson.  He could become a member of GRP
>>>>> were he
>>>>>>> not so tightly tied to the unions which I think makes that
>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>> for him right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John V. Walsh, MD
>>>>> Professor of Physiology
>>>>> University of Massachusetts Medical School
>>>>> 55 Lake Avenue, N.
>>>>> Worcester, MA, 01655-0127
>>>>> Phone (work): 508-856-3360
>>>>> Phone (cell): 508-868-1653
>>>>> email: john.walsh at umassmed.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Get today's hot entertainment gossip  http://movies.msn.com/movies/
>>> hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>