[statecom-discuss] Re: [statecom] Proposal for Local Ballot 2008 Exploration Comm. - need co-sponsor

Wed Jan 10 15:21:17 EST 2007

I agree John that ultimately we have a representative democracy and those representatives will use their power regardless of any referendum or intiativey well meaning citizens.

  My point however is that the appropriately worded ballot question can be used to expose the Dems and eventually get GRP's elected.

  If the problem is getting GRP's elected to our representative government, then we need to ask ourselves what is it that prevents us from getting elected.

  My answers are this: 

  1) it is very difficult to win at high levels of government because of resource constraints mainly,

  2)  there is a lack of trust (who wants to vote a person in for State Senate when she hasn't even proven that she can get her local neighbors behind her to win a school committee seat), and

  3) lack of clear identification behind a passionate cause, and

  4) No tractable and measurable distinguishability between GRP and progressive Dems.

  If you agree that these are the four main problems to getting GRP's elected then it makes sense to ask how to remove these impediments.

  I think the simultaneous local ballot questions on 1 (or two at the most) sponsored by the party is the best way to remove these impediments; it deals with all four impediments in the following fashion:

  a) local ballot questions are relatively cheap to do compared to running for high offices for reasons we can discuss later but don't matter to this discussion
  b) no trust is needed since you aren't trying to run for any office
  c) the single issue nature of the ballot question identifies the passionate cause
  d) if the question is worded properly to get to root causes then it exposes the Dems

  Find me another solution that solves all 4 problems at the same time !.... I'm all ears.

  But I don't think there is another solution.

  The fastest way for the GRP to come to power is through a series of local ballot questions on 1 or maybe 2 (I'm still anayzing the case of 2 issues) passionate issues that expose the Dems through root cause analysis.

  Also remember that the point of doing the local ballot questions is not so much to bring a social change on the issue, but to position oneself to run for office and come into power through the representative government which you point out, correctly, is dominant.

  Ron

John Walsh <jvwalshmd at gmail.com> wrote:
  PLEASE POST TO DISCUSSION LIST SINCE I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS.

But my main point is that every major campaign in Mass (single-payer,
clean elections), the referendum process has been tried and it failed.
Why? Not because we have not won the argument. Large majorities
favor single payer and clean elections. And we do not need to get the
"argument going" on these issues. We have already won the battle of
ideas. Why then does nothing happen?
Because ours is a representative government in the end. And that is
why we need a third party. In fact the failure of the
referendum/initiative process is exactly the reason we need a GRP and
GRP reps in the statehouse.
I would even argue that doing the referenda and supporting Dem
legislation is a great step backward and allows the Dems to say that
they are "really" on our side. This tactic may be a great vehicle for
winning the hearts of the Dem establishemt (which includes "P"DA by
the way) and it may even be a good vehicle for some personal ambitions
- but it is very detrimental to the argument that we need a GRP.
jw

On 1/10/07, Adam Sacks wrote:
>
> I think that the process of mounting local ballot questions is as important as whether it passes. It's an organizing tool every bit as much as a policy tool - gets the discussion going in a way that people may not have thought about an issue before, and puts the GRP in focus. Similarly for running a candidate, but generally a single issue is not nearly so central.
>
> As for focusing on people's main concerns, I agree completely.
>
> Adam
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: John Walsh 
> To: Discussion List for StateCom members ; gooberthink06 at yahoo.com
> Cc: State Committee Official Business 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:41:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Re: [statecom] Proposal for Local Ballot 2008 Exploration Comm. - need co-sponsor
>
> I am afraid that I do not get this ballot initiative proposal. First
> of all the single-payer community and the clean elections people did
> this, the former for decades.
> Ultimately we have a representative form of government, and the Greens
> are the only vehicle to allow democratic change via that form of
> government. Referenda can be pursued without an electoral party. Why
> would we do this? It is a failed tactic and it runs counter to our
> very reason for being.
> Secondly, I do not believe that abolishing poverty, admirable as that
> goal is, is something on the minds of most voters. Do we not have to
> meet people where they are applying our principles to their main
> concerns? Or do we know better? Arrogance in politics seems like a
> sure loser.
> jw
> p.s. Please forward to the Discussion List since I do not have access.
>
> On 1/9/07, gary hicks wrote:
> > all:
> > was it dr. king or someone else who, when advised by a well-wisher that now is not the time to go public on some issue or other, handed that well wisher a blank sheet of paper and asked for a good date as to when?
> >
> > gh
> >
> > Ron Francis wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting a ballot question on Palestine although I will consider it below now that it has been raised.
> >
> > What I was doing is showing how the characteristics of a Palestine ballot question allow the GRP to distinguish itself clearly ... and that's because it strikes straight to the core of the Democrats complicity with elites.
> >
> > But since you mentioned it !,... I will say that doing a foriegn policy issue next to the poverty related issue that I proposed could be acceptable and Palestine would be a good candidate.
> >
> > Advantages would be that the issue is on people's minds and support for human rights is high in general.
> >
> > The main disavantage would be that it would have us identified with two issues which I am not sure that we really want to do.... but I will consider it in my thinking.. .maybe a two issue identification is acceptable....it's tough to guage since there isn't much historical data on this modality.
> >
> > I disagree that Palestine is a divisive issue. It's the Democrats in Somerville and elsewhere who kept saying "Palestine is divisive". What they really meant is that they wanted to shield zionists inside of progressive circles from stinging criticism from the "left" (social justice workers).
> >
> > But anyway, what is wrong with divisive issues ? Gay marriage is a "divisive" issue, and it's a great issue for us to take up.
> >
> > You said "But it is politically divisive and could be a waste of time for a state political party at best, or a disaster at worst. What's the goal here? To show the public that we can stick our finger in the eye of zionism"
> >
> > The answer to your question is yes. The goal is to show that the GRP is a party that is anti-racist (anti-zionists) and draw support from that as was done in Somerville. Keep in mind that the entire political establishment was against the Somerville Ballot Questions and we still did incredibly well getting 50% in my home precinct on one question.
> >
> > I don't understand why you think the liberation of Palestine is a waste of time for a State Political Party. Our State currently invest 100's of millions of dollars in companies that are invested in killing Palestinians. It would not be a "waste of time" for a progressive State Party to try to put an end to the State's complicity that.
> >
> > In the 80's the State of Massahusetts took out economic sanctions against South Africa. It was an effort led by Byron Rushing and Mel King.
> >
> > There would be nothing wrong with the GRP taking a lead on pushing for the eventual sanctions on aparthied Israel. (Thanks Jimmy Carter !)
> >
> > Ron Francis
> >
> >
> > Adam Sacks wrote: Dear Ron and All -
> >
> > I think that a coordinated local ballot question is a great idea. I think poverty could be a key issue here, as could global warming, green energy, real universal health care, or the state's pre-empting the rights of communities. Any of these could be framed in a way that progressive dems would chicken out.
> >
> > But NOT Palestine.
> >
> > Palestine is a very important issue, and embodies the worst of imperialism and "great power" puppeteering. But it is politically divisive and could be a waste of time for a state political party at best, or a disaster at worst. What's the goal here? To show the public that we can stick our finger in the eye of zionism (most of whom could care less), or to rally people around a populist issue that shows them that we care about their daily worries and pain and that we have some ideas about how to help.
> >
> > Kudos to those who support peace and justice for Palestinians (and Israelis and everybody), but please, not as a ballot question (or any other official GRP statement for that matter).
> >
> > NOT Palestine (did I say that already?).
> >
> > Thx,
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Ron Francis
> > To: State Committee Official Business
> > Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2007 3:18:09 PM
> > Subject: [statecom] Proposal for Local Ballot 2008 Exploration Comm. - need co-sponsor
> >
> > Text of Proposal:
> >
> > A "Local Ballot 2008 Exploration" committee is formed to develop a plan to stimulate identical local ballot initiatives on a single issue in several communities. The local ballot questions would have the party signature on it and would call for a specific instruction to be given to the State Rep in the district. The ballot question must be such as to challenge the root causes of poverty so that it is clearly distinguishable from any intiatives that would be supported by Progressive Democrats.
> >
> > The Committee is charged with choosing the ballot question issue by April 2007. The Committee is charged with developing materials and finishing the ballot question language by July 2007/ The Committee is to use July 2007 to November of 2007 to identify GRP members in local communities who are willing to work on the local ballot intiative. The Committee Work can be coordinated with the Chapter Building / Chapter Rejuvenation Proposal also submitted at this Statecom.
> >
> > Background:
> >
> > Our party needs to be identified with a particular issue that we have a passion about.
> >
> > It is essential that we choose ballot question that clearly exposes the root causes of the system of power that elites and corporations in the US hold over ordinary people. It is also essential that the established Democrats and most of the Progressive Democrats be unable to support the ballot question. This can be done by choosing an issue that exposes the Democrats (supposedly the party of the working person) so that people will choose GRP over Democrats because they see the Democrats for what they really are.
> >
> > The Someville ballot Questions on Palestine met the above requirements: They got to the root cause of a social problem and had language that could not be supported by Progressive Democrats in Somerville since the upper echelons of the Democratic Party made it clear to local Democrats that the Party is zionist and that these local Democrats (some of whom are even Progressive Democrats) would go no where if they were openly anti-zionist. These Progressive Democrats in Somerville must now answer to voters who in fact voted at a 45% level for the Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees.
> >
> > A similar effort is needed for a poverty-related issue.
> >
> > This propsal is intended to develop a dozen or so local ballot questions in 2008 that lead to a 2010 statewide ballot question that firmly plants in the public's mind what the party stands for. This could be coordinated with a Statewide runs if the party is at that level of development adn has a candidate in place by Summer of 2009. The Statewide run would be coordinated with with more of the same ballot question in 2010 so that an infrastructure is in place to develop the Party as a result of the 2010 Statewide offorts as well as the ongoing local ballot questionefforts of the same year.
> >
> > If this plan works it sets up the party to win a substantial percentage of the vote in A) many local races or B) in just a few local races and perhaps one big run for Secretary of State that even if lost (the Secretary of State campaign) results in the further establishment of local infrastructure since the Sec run is associates with a particular issue.
> > _______________________________________________
> > StateCom mailing list
> > StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > StateCom mailing list
> > StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>