[statecom-discuss] Re: statecom-discuss Digest, Vol 33, Issue 15
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Mon Mar 5 16:59:24 EST 2007
On Monday, March 5, 2007, at 04:04 PM,
statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org wrote:
> Send statecom-discuss mailing list submissions to
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> statecom-discuss-owner at green-rainbow.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of statecom-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Common Local Ballot Question 2008 Notes, Saturday March
> 10th & March 24th Meetings (Lloyd Smith)
> 2. Re: Common Local Ballot Question 2008 Notes, Saturday March
> 10th & March 24th Meetings (Adam Sacks)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:25:42 +0000
> From: "Lloyd Smith" <liveinamerica at cctvcambridge.org>
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Common Local Ballot Question 2008
> Notes, Saturday March 10th & March 24th Meetings
> To: "Discussion List for StateCom members"
> <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>, "Discussion List for StateCom
> members" <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>,
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> Message-ID: <W2631715607298481173126342 at webmail3>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> HI All,In the words of the legendary Rodney King,"Can we all get
> along
> here?".Isn't there an all inclusive way for us to address this so
> that with
> each effort we come closer and closer to the kind of powerful
> approach that
> ALL of this,synthesized,promises to offer?!!
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BillCunningham [mailto:etwee at earthlink.net]
>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2007 07:58 PM
>> To: 'Discussion List for StateCom members',
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Common Local Ballot Question 2008
>> Notes, Saturday March 10th & March 24th Meetings
>>
>> Without getting into any of the other issues raised here, I agree
>> that binding local initiatives are far preferable. However they have
>> become virtually unwinnable since the mid 1990s under current rules.
>>
>> For an explanation see the links below on The Bridge website:
>>
>> http://bridgenews.org/news/072004/motorvotertrouble
>>
>> http://bridgenews.org/background/votercharts.pdf
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
>>> Sent: Mar 5, 2007 11:03 AM
>>> To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Common Local Ballot Question 2008
>>> Notes, Saturday March 10th & March 24th Meetings
>>>
>>> Can someone help me distinguish this from a coordinated statewide
>>> effort?
>>> This may become the defining issue of our politics for 2008 and it is
>>> EXPLICITLY about building the GRP (see below)- yet, I as an elected
>>> statecom rep have
>>> never been asked if I am okay with what issue is chosen- *to
>>> represent* and
>>> *build my party*.
>>>
>>> Let me say here: I prefer binding initiatives, chosen by locals for
>>> their
>>> local community, to build their local.
>>>
>>> An advisory question to legislators has been done - witness the
>>> questions on
>>> finneran (and the other one I cannot remember but was better that
>>> year)- then
>>> the legislators get to decide! There was no luck in making how the
>>> reps
>>> voted an issue in the next election. the anti-war advisory will do
>>> better but
>>> that is because there is huge public visiblity and support on the
>>> issue and they
>>> are now lobbying legislators to continue the grassroots buildling
>>> (not sure
>>> how effective that is being...)
>>>
>>> Lets organize for real change now. and lets do it on thingsl ocal
>>> communities can bind - home rule petitions on housing, CORI, living
>>> wage, conservation,
>>> water use, municipal utilities, etc.
>>>
>>> Love, grace
>>> In a message dated 3/5/07 2:37:32 AM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Common Local Ballot Question 2008 Notes, Saturday March 10th &
>>>> March 24th
>>>> Meetings
>>>>
>>>> Dear GRP folks,
>>>>
>>>> The next meeting of the Common Local Ballot Question 2008
>>>> initiative
>>>> (CLBQ2008) will be Saturday March 10th at noon in Somerville (44
>>>> benton Rd #1) and
>>>> then Saturday March 24th , noon, in Western MA. The meeting after
>>>> that will
>>>> likely be Thursday April 12th at a place to be announced.
>>>>
>>>> For more info about the CLBQ2008 draft proposal, see end of this
>>>> email or
>>>> call 617 230-2835 to get a copy sent to you. Also see footnote
>>>> (1) at end
>>>> of this email.
>>>>
>>>> In brief the CBQ2008 calls on GRP local entities and individuals
>>>> to carry
>>>> out State Rep. level local Ballot Questions in as many State Rep
>>>> districts as
>>>> possible on one common issue that has a root cause wording that
>>>> definitively
>>>> distinguishes the GRP from other parties.
>>>>
>>>> The proposal is based on an analysis of a GPUS and GRP-endorsed
>>>> local
>>>> ballot question in Somerville in 2006 that used root-cause language
>>>> and generated
>>>> 45 % vote despite being strongly opposed by all Democrats and
>>>> Republicans !
>>>> For questions on this matter please call me at 617 230-2835.
>>>>
>>>> The proposal is also based on the need for significantly
>>>> increased LOCAL
>>>> organizing as the key to building the GRP into the future. The
>>>> plan is for
>>>> 2008 so that it can be well thought out and so that there is enough
>>>> time for
>>>> solid mobilizing. Let’s build our GRP from the bottom up and
>>>> systematically
>>>> create the socially, economically and ecologically just world that
>>>> we all need
>>>> !
>>>>
>>>> WHAT DO WE WANT ? ……Local Organizing !
>>>> WHEN DO WE WANT IT ? …..Now ! …….(actually 2008.. Oooops !)
>>>>
>>>> Please plan to attend the March 10th meeting. We need asmany
>>>> people on
>>>> board as possible (!) to grow this initiative. Let’s build our
>>>> GRP at the
>>>> local levels and clearly expose the ever-so-clear bankrupt policies
>>>> of Dems and
>>>> Repubs.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the notes from last Thursdays (March 1st) informational
>>>> meeting:
>>>>
>>>> Last Thursday we held an informal informational meeting for folks
>>>> interested in Common Local Ballot Question 2008 (CLBQ2008). Three
>>>> of us met and
>>>> reviewed the draft proposal and then sprinted (!) into an energetic
>>>> discussion
>>>> about next steps. The original intention of the meeting was to
>>>> just explain
>>>> the draft proposal and answer questions about it but we wound up
>>>> going further
>>>> as there was good synergy. Two of us were from Somerville, one
>>>> from
>>>> Watertown and a fourth called in from Plymouth and contributed over
>>>> the phone.
>>>>
>>>> Notes from March 1st Preliminary Informational session and Next
>>>> Steps:
>>>>
>>>> We covered 4 items for moving forward which we hope people will
>>>> agree
>>>> with, more or less.
>>>>
>>>> ITEM #1: Initial Questions for each issue that one might consider
>>>> ITEM #2: Brainstorm of Issues
>>>> ITEM #3: “Question Formulation Technique†for considering
>>>> and gathering
>>>> data for each issue
>>>> ITEM #4: CLBQ2008 Meetings and Organizing Ourselves
>>>>
>>>> Here each item is described one at a time:
>>>>
>>>> ITEM #1: Initial Questions for each issue that one might consider
>>>>
>>>> We talked about what were the goals of the CBLQ2008 in general and
>>>> generated some preliminary questions to think about. They were:
>>>>
>>>> Will the ballot question be able to get at least 35 % of the vote
>>>> ?
>>>> Will the ballot question capture voters’ and volunteers’
>>>> imagination ? (a
>>>> good idea attracts people thus we can grow through the interest of
>>>> new
>>>> folks)
>>>> Will the ballot question clearly distinguish us from other
>>>> parties ?
>>>> Will the ballot question be applicable to each State Rep district
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Will the ballot question be phrase-able in terms of a root cause
>>>> analysis
>>>> matching our Key Values ?
>>>>
>>>> ITEM #2 Brainstorm of Issues
>>>>
>>>> We brainstormed 13 different issue areas where ballot questions
>>>> might be
>>>> done (realizing that there might be others….) and decided to do a
>>>> preliminary
>>>> poll to see which issues people might be interested in:
>>>>
>>>> A) Decriminalization of Marijuana
>>>> B) Electoral reform (Instant runoff voting and proportional
>>>> representation)
>>>> C) No Child Left Behind (exposing it as an attack on public
>>>> education)
>>>> D) Living Wage for Public and Big Box stores (or other abolish
>>>> poverty
>>>> related issue)
>>>> E) Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees and Divestment
>>>> F) Single payer health care that eliminates health insurance
>>>> companies
>>>> G) Global Warming emission / alternative energy
>>>> H) Public Transportation initiatives
>>>> I) Immigrants Rights (right to vote for residents, reform of laws)
>>>> J) Anti-War related such as high school recruitment issue
>>>> K) Genetically Modified Food Reduction or Elimination
>>>> L) Gay marriage
>>>> M) Reparations
>>>>
>>>> By email, each person is asked to identify the their 1st, 2nd and
>>>> 3rd
>>>> Choice: "1" for first choice, "2" for 2nd Choice and "3" for 3rd
>>>> choice. People
>>>> receiving physical mail are also invited to “call-in†their 3
>>>> choices at 617
>>>> 230-2835. Please feel free to choose an issue not listed. (email
>>>> ronwf777 at yahoo.com)
>>>>
>>>> The poll will not be used to make any long term decisions ! one
>>>> way or the
>>>> other. The spirit of the process that we agreed to would be that
>>>> we would
>>>> just ask questions and not advocate for any issue ! (see below).
>>>> At this
>>>> point we are collecting questions and information and
>>>> de-emphasizing advocacy
>>>> for any particular issue….. We GRP’s are so cooperative, ..
>>>> aren’t we ?! We
>>>> hope you share the spirit that the three of us are suggesting.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of thinking of the poll like a vote, the 3 of us thought
>>>> that the
>>>> results could be used to decide which two issues would be the first
>>>> to go
>>>> through the “Question Formulation Process†that we came up
>>>> with, at our March
>>>> 10th Meeting.
>>>>
>>>> (Charlene from Watertown has used techniques similar to the
>>>> Question
>>>> Formulation Process many times, and suggested it as a vehicle to
>>>> help bring out
>>>> as much information on each issue – see below for the “Question
>>>> Formulation
>>>> Technique†– and the rest of us agreed that it seemed like a
>>>> good technique
>>>> for what we were doing.â€).
>>>>
>>>> We can use the March 24th meeting for the next two issues.
>>>>
>>>> ITEM #3 “Question Formulation Technique†for considering and
>>>> gathering
>>>> data for each issue
>>>>
>>>> At our March 10th meeting we will review the overall plan and
>>>> thinking
>>>> behind CLBQ2008 for folks that have particular questions, and then
>>>> collectively
>>>> choose two issues to subject to the “Question Formulation
>>>> Techniqueâ€
>>>> guidelines.
>>>>
>>>> The Question Formulation Technique was explained to us as a
>>>> method of
>>>> drawing out the critical questions that revolve around a decision
>>>> that one
>>>> intends to make. The spirit of the technique is to not advocate
>>>> but instead to ask
>>>> questions and share information. We actually did a trial run of
>>>> the process
>>>> at our meeting and we all liked it !
>>>>
>>>> The way the Question Formulation Technique works is simple.
>>>> First an
>>>> issue is chosen. Then participants asks questions about the issue
>>>> (such as “Do
>>>> we know the Democratic position on the issue ?â€) Then three
>>>> questions are
>>>> collectively prioritized. For each of the top 3 questions, more
>>>> related
>>>> questions are asked. By the end the group has honed in on key
>>>> questions for each
>>>> issue and can plan to get the answers to help with decisin-making.
>>>> We will
>>>> use this technique as a guideline.
>>>>
>>>> The Question Formulation Technique is one simple way of
>>>> developing a lot
>>>> of questions about any choice one faces, prioritizing those
>>>> questions, and
>>>> honing in on answers. Emphasis is on formulating questions and
>>>> getting info.
>>>> Thanks Charlene for sharing this technique,... which she noted
>>>> might be useful
>>>> for any decision one faces.
>>>>
>>>> ITEM #4 Meetings and Organizing Ourselves
>>>> We decided that we would try to have several meetings around the
>>>> state at
>>>> different locations and at each meeting choose a few issues to take
>>>> through
>>>> our versions of the Question Formulation Technique. After several
>>>> of these
>>>> meetings we would be in a better position to collectively decide on
>>>> an issue
>>>> using the GRP’s consensus decision making process.
>>>>
>>>> The dates are:
>>>> Saturday, March 10th, Noon
>>>> 44 Benton Road #1 (off of Highland Ave) in Somerville
>>>> Home of Ron Francis 617 230-2835
>>>>
>>>> Saturday March 24th Noon:
>>>> Western Mass location (stay tuned…we will inform you of the
>>>> meeting place…
>>>> .)
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely Yours folks,
>>>> Ron Francis
>>>>
>>>> (Ron Francis was the male co-chair of the Green Rainbow Party in
>>>> 2004-2005
>>>> and in 2005-2006 and was a coordinator for the GPUS and GRP-endorsed
>>>> Question 5 and Question 6 campaigns in Somerville)
>>>>
>>>> Footnote referenced earlier:
>>>> (1) Please note also that the CLBQ2008 is NOT meant as a
>>>> substitute for
>>>> the strategic planning being done at the state level of the party.
>>>> CLBQ2008
>>>> has a local organizing focus and gets it's energy from locals and
>>>> individuals. One of the state level strategic planning
>>>> coordinators noted “The
>>>> Strategic Plan (statecom approved) is not supposed to place any
>>>> official limitations
>>>> on what GRP members decide to work on.â€)
>>>>
>>>> Background
>>>>
>>>> Feb 5th email:
>>>> Common Local Ballot Question 2008 Draft Proposal
>>>>
>>>> Dear Statecom folks,
>>>>
>>>> One of the models that the membership committee (circa 2005)
>>>> explored was
>>>> the idea of a Party-led local ballot question(s) as a way of
>>>> developing local
>>>> chapters. It is high time that this strategy be tried. (Note that
>>>> a
>>>> related strategy is being tried in Somerville in which the party -
>>>> State and
>>>> National - got behind a ballot question led by a community group
>>>> (... a different
>>>> strategy but clearly related.))
>>>>
>>>> For several reasons I believe that this strategy (Party led,
>>>> Party-signature local ballot questions - probably on one but maybe
>>>> on two issues max - for
>>>> 2008 leading to statewide in 2010) is the best strategy for the GRP
>>>> to
>>>> pursue at this time and look forward to discussing the reasons why
>>>> at upcoming
>>>> strategy sessions. (Also see arguments below).
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime I invite people to help out with the preparation
>>>> work
>>>> necessary to get this strategy moving before it is too late. If a
>>>> critical mass
>>>> of people would like to pursue this strategy then perhaps it will
>>>> happen.
>>>>
>>>> Some people might feel that this is jumping the gun on our
>>>> strategy
>>>> sessions. It is not. What this effort represents is a doing the
>>>> homework to
>>>> develop one possible strategy to the point where it is ready to go
>>>> if enough GRPs
>>>> want to do it.
>>>>
>>>> In four weeks two meetings will be held, one in Eastern MA and
>>>> one in
>>>> Western Mass for people interested in this strategy. Both will be
>>>> potlucks held
>>>> on Saturday March 3rd and Sunday March 4th respectively. Times and
>>>> places to
>>>> be arranged.
>>>>
>>>> One thing that needs to be done is to begin suggesting specific
>>>> ballot
>>>> question language that scores well on each of the following
>>>> criteria and submit
>>>> the text of the ballot questions on this newly established thread.
>>>> People
>>>> can then begin to edit the ballot question
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> as most ballot questions do.
>>>>
>>>> Here are some criteria that should be considered in developing
>>>> the text.
>>>>
>>>> a) The ballot questions must be such as to challenge the ROOT
>>>> causes of a
>>>> particular social change issue and possibly associated with
>>>> abolishing
>>>> poverty but not necessarily.
>>>>
>>>> b) The ballot question must be clearly distinguishable from any
>>>> intiatives
>>>> that would be supported by Progressive Democrats - our competitors
>>>> for
>>>> social justice minded people.
>>>>
>>>> Just to get the ball rolling I will throw out one example that I
>>>> am not
>>>> particularly wedded to, and instead throw out for general
>>>> discussion and as an
>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>> "Shall the State Represetative from this district be instructed
>>>> to vote in
>>>> favor of a living wage law that covers state employees that work
>>>> over 500
>>>> hours per year, the employees of state service contractors that
>>>> hold contracts
>>>> worth over $25,000 per year, and employees of large retailers with
>>>> gross
>>>> revenues over $1,000,000. The law would call for payment of $10.00
>>>> per hour if
>>>> the employer provides health insurance of at least $2.50 an hour,
>>>> or $12.50
>>>> per hour if not and all amounts are indexed annually."
>>>>
>>>> I would like to see other ballot question language as well on
>>>> other issues
>>>> such as IRV or health care and then let the issues compete based on
>>>> a
>>>> variety of factors including the degree to which we can make this
>>>> issue a party
>>>> signature issue
>>>>
>>>> Below is some of the background for this initiative:
>>>> Please call if you are interested in discussing this or would
>>>> like to help
>>>> in the process.
>>>> Ron Francis 617 230-2835
>>>>
>>>> Background and rational for this strategy:
>>>>
>>>> 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 candidacies if the party is at that level of development
>>>> and has a
>>>> candidate in place by Summer of 2009.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> then
>>>> connected to a statewide candidacy anchored on the ballot question
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> Feb 18th email:
>>>> Common Local Ballot Question 2008 based on Somerville experience
>>>> and other
>>>> factors.
>>>>
>>>> Dear GRP's
>>>>
>>>> (Quick Note: Local Ballots 2008 phone conference is sunday night
>>>> 9:30 pm.
>>>> To participate call, 641 497 7002 code 724655. I look forward to
>>>> getting
>>>> feedback on the plan and discussing in detail the thinking behind
>>>> the 2 year
>>>> Plan)
>>>>
>>>> Some people are interested in how I came up with Local Ballots 2008
>>>> - a two
>>>> year plan to do State Rep Ballot Questions in every district using
>>>> root cause
>>>> politics.
>>>>
>>>> It all has to do with a little experiment in Somerville:
>>>>
>>>> In Somerville in 2006 I helped a group do two ballot questions:
>>>> one of our
>>>> ballot questions read something like " .... support the right of
>>>> return for
>>>> all refugees, including Palestinian refugees, to return to their
>>>> homes". Now
>>>> how could you be against that !
>>>>
>>>> Yet Deval, "Bomb Lebanon" Patrick and the other racists (Capuano,
>>>> Healey and
>>>> Somerville Mayor Curtatone) came out visibly against us ! with
>>>> their photos
>>>> all together. WE obviously struck a cord ! The state GRP and
>>>> national GPUS
>>>> supported the ballot questions of course. We got 45 % overall and
>>>> 50% in my
>>>> home precinct ! Now if that 's not a set-up for the GRP then I
>>>> don't know
>>>> what is.
>>>>
>>>> It is a perfect set-up because the ballot question, by the nature
>>>> of its
>>>> wording, showed the difference between GRP social justice politics
>>>> and racist
>>>> politics.
>>>>
>>>> (Also note that The Dems and Republican racists fell into the trap
>>>> we laid
>>>> for them and did us a big additional favor by all coming together
>>>> on one large
>>>> campaign poster-board used by the zionists to campaign against us
>>>> at each
>>>> polling station. Thus helping making it very clear the difference
>>>> between GRP
>>>> politics and racist Democratic and Republican politics. It was a
>>>> dream come
>>>> true as far as a strategist is concerned ! )
>>>>
>>>> Among other things the 45 % percent shows concretely that the Dems
>>>> and
>>>> Republicans are out of step with ordinary folks sense of human
>>>> rights. The
>>>> zionists (racists) are still recovering, although they won't show
>>>> it and neither
>>>> would I.
>>>>
>>>> (Also note that a Plymouth county GRP respondent noted that the
>>>> ballot
>>>> questions are mainly for concepts and shouldn't be too specific.
>>>> That's perfect
>>>> ! It is exactly a concept that we are trying to get across by
>>>> using the
>>>> ballot question mechanism to have people appreciate why GRP is the
>>>> way to go.)
>>>>
>>>> OK, so that was Somerville.
>>>>
>>>> Lesson learned was clear: Craft a ballot question that clarifies
>>>> the
>>>> difference between Dems, Repubs and us.
>>>>
>>>> The next step in my thinking followed straightforwardly: Let's
>>>> just do the
>>>> same thing in all State Rep districts and really draw out the
>>>> distinction.
>>>> If we are lucky, and all goes as planned, then we can run
>>>> candidates in 2010
>>>> based on the distinction and get big percentages. With the
>>>> Somerville work
>>>> the distinction was between human rights and racism. With the
>>>> Local Ballots
>>>> 2008 initiative the distinction needs to be between GRP social
>>>> justice values
>>>> and Dem, Repub corporate values - that's what ordinary people need:
>>>> a clear
>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> The issue that we use doesn't have to be Palestine but it needs to
>>>> be
>>>> something that hopefully Deval and other prominent Democrats, local
>>>> Progressive
>>>> Democrats (who opposed us in Somerville by the way), and
>>>> Republicans will all
>>>> come out against ! Let's pray that they'll do us that favor.
>>>>
>>>> And that means that the issue has to strike right at the root and
>>>> it has to
>>>> be done in 3 or 4 sentences and it would be better if there was
>>>> some passion
>>>> behind the issue (like refugee rights). We want a voter to say
>>>> "hmmm... that
>>>> makes a lot of sense..." when she/he reads the ballot question and
>>>> begin to
>>>> wonder why the Dems, Prog Dems, and Repubs are all against it. (if
>>>> you were
>>>> against our refugee ballot question then you had to, logically, be
>>>> a racist
>>>> !)
>>>>
>>>> And thus the idea of Local Ballots 2008 was born.
>>>>
>>>> The main problem with Local Ballots 2008, going forward, is that we
>>>> have to
>>>> find the appropriate issue and the appropriate wording. When I
>>>> realized that
>>>> we needed careful thinking and careful wording, I knew that there
>>>> was no
>>>> time to waste because it will take a lot of education and 1.7 years
>>>> is not a lot
>>>> of time - although I would settle for 10 or 12 districts rather
>>>> than all 160
>>>> state rep districts.
>>>>
>>>> Realizing that time was of the essence, I drafted Local Ballots
>>>> 2008 and
>>>> sent it out to as many GRP lists as I could find to set up some
>>>> discussions and
>>>> see if people want to do it. I'll only go forward if a critical
>>>> mass wants
>>>> to do it.
>>>>
>>>> The other parts of my thinking are this:
>>>>
>>>> a) We need to do more local organizing. Too high of a percentage
>>>> of GRP
>>>> work is spent at the State level. If you add up the person-hours at
>>>> one Statecom
>>>> meeting you get about three new chapters that could have been
>>>> formed. We
>>>> need a plan that strongly encourages local organizing and
>>>> encourages us to
>>>> meet ordinary people more often than meet with ourselves.
>>>>
>>>> b) Local State Rep ballot questions are easy to do (only 200
>>>> signatures !)
>>>> and encourage local organizing.
>>>>
>>>> c) We aren't ready for a Statewide ballot question and it may not
>>>> fit with
>>>> the "concept" idea mentioned by the woman from Plymouth. It also
>>>> would not
>>>> encourage local base-building.
>>>>
>>>> d) We need to rely on direct democratic means: that is use ballot
>>>> questions
>>>> rather than trying to lobby Dems and Republicans: the "mainstream"
>>>> parties
>>>> have shown their colors... I'm not going to try to get their
>>>> elected officials
>>>> to vote for social justice (takes too long and they'll waffle
>>>> forever anyhow)
>>>> - I would rather strategize to boot them out of office. I think
>>>> that single
>>>> issue pressure groups are better at forcing concessions out of
>>>> elected
>>>> officials than the GRP would be, anyway.
>>>>
>>>> So that's most of the thinking.
>>>>
>>>> I hope it is clear, but if not I'm happy to answer questions (at
>>>> conference
>>>> call or individually if you prefer)
>>>>
>>>> Ron 617 230-2835
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **************************************
>>> AOL now offers free email to everyone.
>>> Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>
>> Bill Cunningham
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 13:02:49 -0800 (PST)
> From: Adam Sacks <adam_artist at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Common Local Ballot Question 2008
> Notes, Saturday March 10th & March 24th Meetings
> To: BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net>, Discussion List for StateCom
> members <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID: <973658.49493.qm at web51606.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Hi Bill -
>
> I did read the Bridge article, and your point is well taken. It does
> beg the question, however, of why we would ever expect redress from
> the legislature, a body which, though firmly established in legality,
> is flagrant in its illegitimacy.
>
> I suggest that we need to challenge the legislature at a fundamental
> level, using all legal means at our disposal. Is the GRP ready even
> to think along those lines? Is there a community in Massachusetts
> that would do this? How can we expect a system that has created these
> problems - intentionally - to fix them?
>
> Until we start doing things differently we'll just keep doing the same
> things that don't work - over and over and over, keeping ourselves
> very busy, and confounding action/activism for progress.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
> P.S. - I can understand your dismay when you say, "It is really
> discouraging to keep raising this issue time after time without any
> sign that anyone in this party has ever heard me." On the other hand,
> I have adjusted my expectations accordingly . . .
>
> ;^}
>
>
>
> BillCunningham <etwee at earthlink.net> wrote: Again without getting into
> any of the other issues, the binding intiative and referendum process
> is not only expensive and unavailable in a few cities like Somerville.
> It is virtually impossible to win anywhere in this State. Please see
> the links given in my reply just now to Grace.
>
> This is not the first time I have referenced these links!
>
> It is really discouraging to keep raising this issue time after time
> without any sign that anyone in this party has ever heard me. The only
> people who seem to understand are the folks who had already learned
> this stuff before joining GRP, through very bitter experience here in
> Cambridge.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ron Francis
>> Sent: Mar 5, 2007 1:57 PM
>> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
>> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Common Local Ballot Question 2008
>> Notes, Saturday March 10th & March 24th Meetings
>>
>> Thanks for feedback Grace,
>>
>> I agree that it would be better to have binding ballot questions but
>> there is a huge cost to that; it is hard to do binding initiatives in
>> some areas. In Somerville, for example, there is no such thing as a
>> binding local initiative !
>>
>> That cost of trying to do binding initiatives has been considered
>> and the decision made by folks at this point in the CLBQ is to do
>> state rep districts instead,... as of now. The CLBQ meetings are
>> open to the public however and you can come and try to persuade
>> people to do something different (like binding efforts...)
>>
>> This is not a coordinated statewide effort.
>>
>> It is a multi-district effort that in the end may involve only a few
>> districts. It may also involve many districts. Who knows ?... It
>> all depends if people want to do it....
>>
>> Our Statewide candidates of 2006:... now that was a statewide
>> coordinated effort and was voted on by our convention.
>>
>> This is different: this is people from several local communities
>> comng together and wanting to work on a project collectively... which
>> they have the right to do. The statecom cannot say "you Somerville
>> folks are not allowed to work with Arlington folks or Acton folks on
>> a common ballot question" !!. The whole idea is counter to our Ten
>> Key Value of decentralization and local empowerment.
>>
>> So far I am seeing that many people are interested in the effort and
>> I expect the number to grow. I think the CLBQ is a rational plan and
>> people are responding to that. I believe that people out there would
>> respond to other good plans once they are presented. Maybe another
>> March to Abolish Poverty would attract some energy. I don't know but
>> I encourage people to see if their plans can attract energy.
>>
>> As far as choosing the issue and the state party:
>>
>> CLBQ wold not be choosing any issue for the state party since only
>> the statecom can do that. If in 2008 the GRP actually didn't want to
>> support the CLBQ, then it would be an effort by several individual
>> local entities of the party rather than the statecom,... which is
>> fine. I have often thought that maybe what we need is a "federation"
>> of local entities that really focuses on local organizing alongside a
>> statecom that focuses on statelevel stuff by definition.
>>
>> No one is forcing the state party to endorse this multi-district
>> local effort. On the other hand the statecom cannot and should not
>> stop a Somerville entity from working with a Watertown entity from
>> workign with a Plymouth entitiy, from working with an Acton entity
>> from working with a Arlington entity from working with a Weston
>> entity. These local entities are free to collaborate as they want
>> to: we are not a top down authoritarian party.
>>
>> In Novemebr of 2008 I can see the headline:
>>
>> Fox news reporting ! :
>>
>> "Local entities of the Green Rainbow Party placed a common question
>> on the ballot in 25 districts. The state party took no position but
>> 25 local entities organized to put the question on the ballot. The
>> ballot questions were opposed by Governor Patrick, and the Republican
>> Party yet resulted in a 55 % Yes vote....Local GR organizers have put
>> their democratic elected state reps on notice that they had better
>> come around on the issue or else face a challenge in there >> districts."
>>
>> That is the result that we want.
>>
>> Finally, when GR's decide to go to the state house to do a press
>> conference to attack Deval "Bomb Lebanon" Patrick's budget, then I am
>> not "choosing the issue". Someone else is choosing the issue and
>> it involves people that have disproportionate power because of status
>> in the media as de facto GRP representatives.
>>
>> But I would never say that anyone should not do it. I support your
>> adn other's effort to gain state-wide attention for the party using a
>> particular press conference / legislative approach or strategy....
>> even though I won't be in on choosing the issue, or the tactics.
>>
>> As it has been opined before: Let 100 flowers bloom.
>>
>> The cool thing about CLBQ is that it involves individual GR's who
>> are committed to organizing in their own local communities. This is
>> about bootom up grassroots organizing with people from different
>> areas getting involved because they want to organize their own local
>> communities. It's grassroots community organizing.
>>
>> Love,
>> Ron
>>
>> Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>> Can someone help me distinguish this from a coordinated statewide
>> effort?
>> This may become the defining issue of our politics for 2008 and it is
>> EXPLICITLY about building the GRP (see below)- yet, I as an elected
>> statecom rep have
>> never been asked if I am okay with what issue is chosen- *to
>> represent* and
>> *build my party*.
>>
>> Let me say here: I prefer binding initiatives, chosen by locals for
>> their
>> local community, to build their local.
>>
>> An advisory question to legislators has been done - witness the
>> questions on
>> finneran (and the other one I cannot remember but was better that
>> year)- then
>> the legislators get to decide! There was no luck in making how the
>> reps
>> voted an issue in the next election. the anti-war advisory will do
>> better but
>> that is because there is huge public visiblity and support on the
>> issue and they
>> are now lobbying legislators to continue the grassroots buildling
>> (not sure
>> how effective that is being...)
>>
>> Lets organize for real change now. and lets do it on thingsl ocal
>> communities can bind - home rule petitions on housing, CORI, living
>> wage, conservation,
>> water use, municipal utilities, etc.
>>
>> Love, grace
>> In a message dated 3/5/07 2:37:32 AM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> Common Local Ballot Question 2008 Notes, Saturday March 10th & March
>>> 24th
>>> Meetings
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Dear GRP folks,
>>> Â Â
>>> Â The next meeting of the Common Local Ballot Question 2008
>>> initiative
>>> (CLBQ2008) will be Saturday March 10th at noon in Somerville (44
>>> benton Rd #1) and
>>> then Saturday March 24th , noon, in Western MA. The meeting after
>>> that will
>>> likely be Thursday April 12th at a place to be announced.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â For more info about the CLBQ2008 draft proposal, see end of this
>>> email or
>>> call 617 230-2835 to get a copy sent to you.  Also see footnote
>>> (1) at end
>>> of this email.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â In brief the CBQ2008 calls on GRP local entities and individuals
>>> to carry
>>> out State Rep. level local Ballot Questions in as many State Rep
>>> districts as
>>> possible on one common issue that has a root cause wording that
>>> definitively
>>> distinguishes the GRP from other parties.Â
>>> Â Â
>>> Â The proposal is based on an analysis of a GPUS and GRP-endorsed
>>> local
>>> ballot question in Somerville in 2006 that used root-cause language
>>> and generated
>>> 45 % vote despite being strongly opposed by all Democrats and
>>> Republicans !Â
>>> For questions on this matter please call me at 617 230-2835.Â
>>> Â Â
>>> Â The proposal is also based on the need for significantly
>>> increased LOCAL
>>> organizing as the key to building the GRP into the future. The
>>> plan is for
>>> 2008 so that it can be well thought out and so that there is enough
>>> time for
>>> solid mobilizing. Letâ??s build our GRP from the bottom up and
>>> systematically
>>> create the socially, economically and ecologically just world that
>>> we all need
>>> !
>>> Â Â
>>>  WHAT DO WE WANT ? â?|â?|Local Organizing !
>>> Â WHEN DO WE WANT IT ? â?|..Now ! â?|â?|.(actually 2008.. Oooops !)
>>> Â Â
>>>  Please plan to attend the March 10th meeting. We need asmany
>>> people on
>>> board as possible (!) to grow this initiative. Letâ??s build our
>>> GRP at the
>>> local levels and clearly expose the ever-so-clear bankrupt policies
>>> of Dems and
>>> Repubs.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Here are the notes from last Thursdays (March 1st) informational
>>> meeting:
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Last Thursday we held an informal informational meeting for folks
>>> interested in Common Local Ballot Question 2008 (CLBQ2008). Â
>>> Three of us met and
>>> reviewed the draft proposal and then sprinted (!) into an energetic
>>> discussion
>>> about next steps. The original intention of the meeting was to
>>> just explain
>>> the draft proposal and answer questions about it but we wound up
>>> going further
>>> as there was good synergy.  Two of us were from Somerville, one
>>> from
>>> Watertown and a fourth called in from Plymouth and contributed over
>>> the phone.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Notes from March 1st Preliminary Informational session and Next
>>> Steps:
>>> Â Â
>>> Â We covered 4 items for moving forward which we hope people will
>>> agree
>>> with, more or less.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â ITEM #1:Â Initial Questions for each issue that one might
>>> consider
>>> Â ITEM #2:Â Brainstorm of Issues
>>> Â ITEM #3:Â â??Question Formulation Techniqueâ?? for considering
>>> and gathering
>>> data for each issue
>>> Â ITEM #4:Â CLBQ2008 Meetings and Organizing Ourselves
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Here each item is described one at a time:
>>> Â Â
>>> Â ITEM #1:Â Initial Questions for each issue that one might
>>> consider
>>> Â Â
>>> Â We talked about what were the goals of the CBLQ2008 in general and
>>> generated some preliminary questions to think about. They were:
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Will the ballot question be able to get at least 35 % of the vote
>>> ?
>>> Â Will the ballot question capture votersâ?? and volunteersâ??
>>> imagination ? (a
>>> good idea attracts people thus we can grow through the interest of
>>> new
>>> folks)
>>> Â Will the ballot question clearly distinguish us from other
>>> parties ?
>>> Â Will the ballot question be applicable to each State Rep district
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Â Will the ballot question be phrase-able in terms of a root cause
>>> analysis
>>> matching our Key Values ?
>>> Â Â
>>> Â ITEM #2Â Brainstorm of Issues
>>> Â Â
>>> Â We brainstormed 13 different issue areas where ballot questions
>>> might be
>>> done (realizing that there might be othersâ?|.) and decided to do a
>>> preliminary
>>> poll to see which issues people might be interested in:
>>> Â Â
>>> Â A) Decriminalization of Marijuana
>>> Â B) Electoral reform (Instant runoff voting and proportional
>>> representation)
>>> Â C) No Child Left Behind (exposing it as an attack on public
>>> education)
>>> Â D) Living Wage for Public and Big Box stores (or other abolish
>>> poverty
>>> related issue)
>>> Â E) Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees and Divestment
>>> Â F) Single payer health care that eliminates health insurance
>>> companies
>>> Â G) Global Warming emission / alternative energy
>>> Â H) Public Transportation initiatives
>>> Â I) Immigrants Rights (right to vote for residents, reform of laws)
>>> Â J) Anti-War related such as high school recruitment issue
>>> Â K) Genetically Modified Food Reduction or Elimination
>>> Â L) Gay marriage
>>> Â M) Reparations
>>> Â Â
>>> Â By email, each person is asked to identify the their 1st, 2nd and
>>> 3rd
>>> Choice: "1" for first choice, "2" for 2nd Choice and "3" for 3rd
>>> choice. People
>>> receiving physical mail are also invited to â??call-inâ?? their 3
>>> choices at 617
>>> 230-2835. Please feel free to choose an issue not listed. (email
>>> ronwf777 at yahoo.com)
>>> Â Â
>>> Â The poll will not be used to make any long term decisions ! one
>>> way or the
>>> other.  The spirit of the process that we agreed to would be that
>>> we would
>>> just ask questions and not advocate for any issue ! (see below). Â
>>> At this
>>> point we are collecting questions and information and de-emphasizing
>>> advocacy
>>> for any particular issueâ?|.. We GRPâ??s are so cooperative, ..
>>> arenâ??t we ?! We
>>> hope you share the spirit that the three of us are suggesting.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Instead of thinking of the poll like a vote, the 3 of us thought
>>> that the
>>> results could be used to decide which two issues would be the first
>>> to go
>>> through the â??Question Formulation Processâ?? that we came up with,
>>> at our March
>>> 10th Meeting.
>>> Â Â
>>>  (Charlene from Watertown has used techniques similar to the
>>> Question
>>> Formulation Process many times, and suggested it as a vehicle to
>>> help bring out
>>> as much information on each issue â?? see below for the â??Question
>>> Formulation
>>> Techniqueâ?? â?? and the rest of us agreed that it seemed like a
>>> good technique
>>> for what we were doing.â??).Â
>>> Â Â
>>> Â We can use the March 24th meeting for the next two issues.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â ITEM #3Â â??Question Formulation Techniqueâ?? for considering
>>> and gathering
>>> data for each issue
>>> Â Â
>>> Â At our March 10th meeting we will review the overall plan and
>>> thinking
>>> behind CLBQ2008 for folks that have particular questions, and then
>>> collectively
>>> choose two issues to subject to the â??Question Formulation
>>> Techniqueâ??
>>> guidelines.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â The Question Formulation Technique was explained to us as a
>>> method of
>>> drawing out the critical questions that revolve around a decision
>>> that one
>>> intends to make. The spirit of the technique is to not advocate
>>> but instead to ask
>>> questions and share information. We actually did a trial run of
>>> the process
>>> at our meeting and we all liked it !
>>> Â Â
>>> Â The way the Question Formulation Technique works is simple.Â
>>> First an
>>> issue is chosen. Then participants asks questions about the issue
>>> (such as â??Do
>>> we know the Democratic position on the issue ?â??)Â Then three
>>> questions are
>>> collectively prioritized. For each of the top 3 questions, more
>>> related
>>> questions are asked.  By the end the group has honed in on key
>>> questions for each
>>> issue and can plan to get the answers to help with decisin-making.Â
>>> We will
>>> use this technique as a guideline.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â The Question Formulation Technique is one simple way of
>>> developing a lot
>>> of questions about any choice one faces, prioritizing those
>>> questions, and
>>> honing in on answers. Emphasis is on formulating questions and
>>> getting info.Â
>>> Thanks Charlene for sharing this technique,... which she noted might
>>> be useful
>>> for any decision one faces.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â ITEM #4Â Meetings and Organizing Ourselves
>>> Â We decided that we would try to have several meetings around the
>>> state at
>>> different locations and at each meeting choose a few issues to take
>>> through
>>> our versions of the Question Formulation Technique. After several
>>> of these
>>> meetings we would be in a better position to collectively decide on
>>> an issue
>>> using the GRPâ??s consensus decision making process.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â The dates are:
>>> Â Saturday, March 10th, NoonÂ
>>> Â 44 Benton Road #1 (off of Highland Ave) in Somerville
>>> Â Home of Ron Francis 617 230-2835
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Saturday March 24th Noon:Â
>>> Â Western Mass location (stay tunedâ?|we will inform you of the
>>> meeting placeâ?|
>>> .)
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Sincerely Yours folks,
>>> Â Ron Francis
>>> Â Â
>>> Â (Ron Francis was the male co-chair of the Green Rainbow Party in
>>> 2004-2005
>>> and in 2005-2006 and was a coordinator for the GPUS and GRP-endorsed
>>> Question 5 and Question 6 campaigns in Somerville)
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Footnote referenced earlier:
>>> Â (1) Please note also that the CLBQ2008 is NOT meant as a
>>> substitute for
>>> the strategic planning being done at the state level of the party.Â
>>> CLBQ2008
>>> has a local organizing focus and gets it's energy from locals and
>>> individuals.  One of the state level strategic planning
>>> coordinators noted â??The
>>> Strategic Plan (statecom approved) is not supposed to place any
>>> official limitations
>>> on what GRP members decide to work on.â??)
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Background
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Feb 5th email:
>>> Â Common Local Ballot Question 2008 Draft Proposal
>>> Â Â Â
>>> Â Dear Statecom folks,
>>> Â Â
>>> Â One of the models that the membership committee (circa 2005)
>>> explored was
>>> the idea of a Party-led local ballot question(s) as a way of
>>> developing local
>>> chapters. It is high time that this strategy be tried. (Note
>>> that a
>>> related strategy is being tried in Somerville in which the party -
>>> State and
>>> National - got behind a ballot question led by a community group
>>> (... a different
>>> strategy but clearly related.))
>>> Â Â
>>> Â For several reasons I believe that this strategy (Party led,
>>> Party-signature local ballot questions - probably on one but maybe
>>> on two issues max - for
>>> 2008 leading to statewide in 2010) is the best strategy for the GRP
>>> to
>>> pursue at this time and look forward to discussing the reasons why
>>> at upcoming
>>> strategy sessions. (Also see arguments below).
>>> Â Â
>>> Â In the meantime I invite people to help out with the preparation
>>> work
>>> necessary to get this strategy moving before it is too late. If a
>>> critical mass
>>> of people would like to pursue this strategy then perhaps it will
>>> happen.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Some people might feel that this is jumping the gun on our
>>> strategy
>>> sessions. It is not. What this effort represents is a doing the
>>> homework to
>>> develop one possible strategy to the point where it is ready to go
>>> if enough GRPs
>>> want to do it.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â In four weeks two meetings will be held, one in Eastern MA and
>>> one in
>>> Western Mass for people interested in this strategy. Both will be
>>> potlucks held
>>> on Saturday March 3rd and Sunday March 4th respectively. Times and
>>> places to
>>> be arranged.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â One thing that needs to be done is to begin suggesting specific
>>> ballot
>>> question language that scores well on each of the following criteria
>>> and submit
>>> the text of the ballot questions on this newly established thread.Â
>>> People
>>> can then begin to edit the ballot question
>>> Â Â
>>> Â 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
>>> as most ballot questions do.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Here are some criteria that should be considered in developing
>>> the text.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â a) The ballot questions must be such as to challenge the ROOT
>>> causes of a
>>> particular social change issue and possibly associated with
>>> abolishing
>>> poverty but not necessarily.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â b) The ballot question must be clearly distinguishable from any
>>> intiatives
>>> that would be supported by Progressive Democrats - our competitors
>>> for
>>> social justice minded people.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Just to get the ball rolling I will throw out one example that I
>>> am not
>>> particularly wedded to, and instead throw out for general discussion
>>> and as an
>>> example.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â "Shall the State Represetative from this district be instructed
>>> to vote in
>>> favor of a living wage law that covers state employees that work
>>> over 500
>>> hours per year, the employees of state service contractors that hold
>>> contracts
>>> worth over $25,000 per year, and employees of large retailers with
>>> gross
>>> revenues over $1,000,000. The law would call for payment of $10.00
>>> per hour if
>>> the employer provides health insurance of at least $2.50 an hour, or
>>> $12.50
>>> per hour if not and all amounts are indexed annually."
>>> Â Â
>>> Â I would like to see other ballot question language as well on
>>> other issues
>>> such as IRV or health care and then let the issues compete based on a
>>> variety of factors including the degree to which we can make this
>>> issue a party
>>> signature issue
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Below is some of the background for this initiative:
>>> Â Please call if you are interested in discussing this or would
>>> like to help
>>> in the process.
>>> Â Ron Francis 617 230-2835
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Background and rational for this strategy:
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Our party needs to be identified with a particular issue that we
>>> have a
>>> passion about.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â 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.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â The Someville ballot Questions on Palestine met the above
>>> requirements:Â
>>> 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.Â
>>> 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.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â A similar effort is needed for a poverty-related issue.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â 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 candidacies if the party is at that level of development
>>> and has a
>>> candidate in place by Summer of 2009.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â 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
>>> then
>>> connected to a statewide candidacy anchored on the ballot question
>>> issue.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Feb 18th email:
>>> Â Common Local Ballot Question 2008 based on Somerville experience
>>> and other
>>> factors.
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Â Dear GRP's
>>>
>>> (Quick Note: Local Ballots 2008 phone conference is sunday night
>>> 9:30 pm.Â
>>>  To participate call, 641 497 7002 code 724655. I look forward
>>> to getting
>>> feedback on the plan and discussing in detail the thinking behind
>>> the 2 year
>>> Plan)
>>>
>>> Some people are interested in how I came up with Local Ballots 2008
>>> - a two
>>> year plan to do State Rep Ballot Questions in every district using
>>> root cause
>>> politics.
>>>
>>> It all has to do with a little experiment in Somerville:
>>>
>>> In Somerville in 2006 I helped a group do two ballot questions:Â
>>> one of our
>>> ballot questions read something like " .... support the right of
>>> return for
>>> all refugees, including Palestinian refugees, to return to their
>>> homes". Now
>>> how could you be against that !Â
>>>
>>> Yet Deval, "Bomb Lebanon" Patrick and the other racists (Capuano,
>>> Healey and
>>> Somerville Mayor Curtatone) came out visibly against us ! with their
>>> photos
>>> all together. WE obviously struck a cord !  The state GRP and
>>> national GPUS
>>> supported the ballot questions of course. We got 45 % overall and
>>> 50% in my
>>> home precinct !  Now if that 's not a set-up for the GRP then I
>>> don't know
>>> what is.Â
>>>
>>> It is a perfect set-up because the ballot question, by the nature of
>>> its
>>> wording, showed the difference between GRP social justice politics
>>> and racist
>>> politics.
>>>
>>> (Also note that The Dems and Republican racists fell into the trap
>>> we laid
>>> for them and did us a big additional favor by all coming together on
>>> one large
>>> campaign poster-board used by the zionists to campaign against us at
>>> each
>>> polling station. Thus helping making it very clear the difference
>>> between GRP
>>> politics and racist Democratic and Republican politics. It was a
>>> dream come
>>> true as far as a strategist is concerned ! )
>>>
>>> Among other things the 45 % percent shows concretely that the Dems
>>> and
>>> Republicans are out of step with ordinary folks sense of human
>>> rights. The
>>> zionists (racists) are still recovering, although they won't show it
>>> and neither
>>> would I.
>>>
>>> (Also note that a Plymouth county GRP respondent noted that the
>>> ballot
>>> questions are mainly for concepts and shouldn't be too specific.Â
>>> That's perfect
>>> ! It is exactly a concept that we are trying to get across by
>>> using the
>>> ballot question mechanism to have people appreciate why GRP is the
>>> way to go.)
>>>
>>> OK, so that was Somerville.
>>>
>>> Lesson learned was clear:Â Craft a ballot question that clarifies
>>> the
>>> difference between Dems, Repubs and us.
>>>
>>> The next step in my thinking followed straightforwardly:Â Let's
>>> just do the
>>> same thing in all State Rep districts and really draw out the
>>> distinction. Â
>>> If we are lucky, and all goes as planned, then we can run candidates
>>> in 2010
>>> based on the distinction and get big percentages.  With the
>>> Somerville work
>>> the distinction was between human rights and racism. With the
>>> Local Ballots
>>> 2008 initiative the distinction needs to be between GRP social
>>> justice values
>>> and Dem, Repub corporate values - that's what ordinary people need:
>>> a clear
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> The issue that we use doesn't have to be Palestine but it needs to be
>>> something that hopefully Deval and other prominent Democrats, local
>>> Progressive
>>> Democrats (who opposed us in Somerville by the way), and Republicans
>>> will all
>>> come out against !  Let's pray that they'll do us that favor.
>>>
>>> And that means that the issue has to strike right at the root and it
>>> has to
>>> be done in 3 or 4 sentences and it would be better if there was some
>>> passion
>>> behind the issue (like refugee rights). We want a voter to say
>>> "hmmm... that
>>> makes a lot of sense..." when she/he reads the ballot question and
>>> begin to
>>> wonder why the Dems, Prog Dems, and Repubs are all against it. (if
>>> you were
>>> against our refugee ballot question then you had to, logically, be a
>>> racist
>>> !)
>>>
>>> And thus the idea of Local Ballots 2008 was born.
>>>
>>> The main problem with Local Ballots 2008, going forward, is that we
>>> have to
>>> find the appropriate issue and the appropriate wording. When I
>>> realized that
>>> we needed careful thinking and careful wording, I knew that there
>>> was no
>>> time to waste because it will take a lot of education and 1.7 years
>>> is not a lot
>>> of time - although I would settle for 10 or 12 districts rather than
>>> all 160
>>> state rep districts.
>>>
>>> Realizing that time was of the essence, I drafted Local Ballots 2008
>>> and
>>> sent it out to as many GRP lists as I could find to set up some
>>> discussions and
>>> see if people want to do it. I'll only go forward if a critical
>>> mass wants
>>> to do it.
>>>
>>> The other parts of my thinking are this:
>>>
>>> a) We need to do more local organizing. Too high of a percentage
>>> of GRP
>>> work is spent at the State level. If you add up the person-hours at
>>> one Statecom
>>> meeting you get about three new chapters that could have been
>>> formed.  We
>>> need a plan that strongly encourages local organizing and encourages
>>> us to
>>> meet ordinary people more often than meet with ourselves.
>>>
>>> b) Local State Rep ballot questions are easy to do (only 200
>>> signatures !)
>>> and encourage local organizing.
>>>
>>> c) We aren't ready for a Statewide ballot question and it may not
>>> fit with
>>> the "concept" idea mentioned by the woman from Plymouth. It also
>>> would not
>>> encourage local base-building.
>>>
>>> d) We need to rely on direct democratic means: that is use ballot
>>> questions
>>> rather than trying to lobby Dems and Republicans: the "mainstream"
>>> parties
>>> have shown their colors... I'm not going to try to get their elected
>>> officials
>>> to vote for social justice (takes too long and they'll waffle
>>> forever anyhow)
>>> - I would rather strategize to boot them out of office. I think
>>> that single
>>> issue pressure groups are better at forcing concessions out of
>>> elected
>>> officials than the GRP would be, anyway.
>>>
>>> So that's most of the thinking.
>>>
>>> I hope it is clear, but if not I'm happy to answer questions (at
>>> conference
>>> call or individually if you prefer)
>>>
>>> Ron 617 230-2835
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Â
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **************************************
>> AOL now offers free email to everyone.
>> Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.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
>
>
> Bill Cunningham
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> End of statecom-discuss Digest, Vol 33, Issue 15
> ************************************************
>
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list