Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I do not agree with proposal 002-15 in its current form. I would like this proposal be modified to endorse only HB15-1300.An additional PRO for this proposal is the reduction in poverty and suffering that will follow passage of HB15-1300 and action by local jurisdictions.I do not support HCR15-1001 because $12.50 will not be even close to a living wage in 2020. In 2014 in Adams County both parents in a four person family needed to work full-time for $15.66 per hour to be self-sufficient.I do support Green Party action on HB15-1300 for a number of reasons:1. HB15-1300 is a result of my campaign for governor in 2014. I first called for this bill in my one debate with Hickenlooper and Beauprez at the Arvada Chamber of Commerce.2. The Colorado Retail Council (Wal-Mart, Target, JC Penney, Safeway, and Kroger/King Soopers/City Market) are against HB15-1300 (that's a good enough reason by itself:).3. Colorado is one of only 15 states that outlaws local minimum wages. Cities like San Jose, Seattle, and San Francisco are experiencing new, broad-based economic vitality following their minimum wage increases. 4. US Congress and CO Legislature are not going to raise the minimum wage. For the CO legislature to raise the state minimum wage would take a 2/3 vote by the House and Senate, which won't happen until Republicans control less than 33% of the votes. The only hope for now is to let our cities raise wages (which takes only simple majority of both chambers).5. When I testify on HB15-1300 at the upcoming Senate committee hearing I would love to be able to say the Colorado Green Party supports Local Minimum Wages.6. The Senate hearing room (probably the Senate State, Veteran and Military Affairs Committee) needs to packed with Greens and others who put people before profits to testify for this bill. Support from the Green Party will increase the turnout. Testimony from the public at legislative committee hearings can be impactful. Last year mass testimony against HCR14-1002 that would have doubled the number of petition signatures required for a CO citizens ballot initiative caused the committee to kill the bill. On March 25, 2015 our testimony in the House committee hearing against HB15-1057, another bill to suppress citizens' power of initiative, caused the committee to delay its vote - we will see how that bill comes out.7. The Greater Boulder chapter called for Local Minimum Wages on Dec. 11, 2014. This is their resolution: RESOLUTION FOR LOCAL CONTROL OF MINIMUM WAGES IN COLORADOWHEREAS the state of Colorado prohibited local units of government from establishing a minimum wage by passing SB99-014, thus forcing all municipalities and counties in Colorado to accept the state's minimum wage regardless of the local cost of living,And whereas real median income in Colorado has fallen annually since the turn of the century and the downward trend has accelerated since the bank and mortgage crises of 2008,And whereas the cost of living varies greatly across Colorado, making it impossible for the state to set a standard minimum wage that meets the needs of workers throughout the state,And whereas the state minimum wage, currently $8.00 per hour, provides full-time workers with poverty-level compensation in many parts of the state,And whereas a living wage reduces employee turnover, absenteeism and disciplinary problems,And whereas a living wage improves employee morale, productivity, and customer service, And whereas the supply side economic theory that raising pay necessarily causes job loss has been disproved over and over again by rigorous research over the past fifteen years (see The Job Loss Myth, for a summary of recent research),And whereas poverty-level wages place a burden on state and local government revenues for public assistance programs,And whereas cities in other states, including California, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico and Washington, have raised their minimum wages,BE IT RESOLVED that the Colorado General Assembly end statewide control of the minimum wage by repealing SB99-014, thus enabling towns, cities and counties in Colorado to establish local minimum wages commensurate with the local cost of living.Adopted December 11, 2014Kevin Alumbaugh and Susan Hall, Chapter Co-chairs
Hilary Swortwood-Green is the state liaison for the Southwest Colorado Greens. She has agreed to be on the strategic planning committee.
I like the prefinal version of the Dec. bulletin.IMO distribution of GPCO bulletins should include the GPCO website and Facebook page and Colorado media outlets.The media prefers press releases in text in emails; attachments often don't get read.
I agree that GPCO form a strategic planning committee to prepare recommendations for the 2015 annual meeting.Suggestions:1. Strategy Committee membership: One person from each local chapter, designated by the co-chair(s) of each chapter.2. Meetings: All committee meetings will be accessible remotely, using Skype, GoToMeeting, or a similar application.3. Organization: The committee will be self-organizing.4. Start date: February 22. Chapter co-chairs to designate their representative by February 21.5. Finish date: The committee will report its recommendations on or before March 13, 2015.Volunteers:Harry Hempy volunteers to represent the Greater Boulder chapter, subject to approval of co-chairs Kevin Alumbaugh and Susan Hall.Harry volunteers to set up and administer the remote meeting facilities for the committee.
For the record, I testified (representing myself as a candidate for Governor) at the Colorado House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs about HB14-1062 (Approval Voting Act) on March 12, 2014. Also, representatives of the Libertarian, American Constitution, Democratic, and Republican parties, Colorado Common Cause, and the Colorado League of Women Voters testified.I called for the Legislature, Governor, and Secretary of State to use a multiple-choice voting system for all Colorado state elections in 2016 (going far beyond the scope of bill #1062). The call was not acted on (no surprise) and the committee's inaction is in the public record.My testimony:
Harry HempyPO Box 264Jamestown, CO 80455March 12, 2014
House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Rep. Jonathan SingerSen. David BalmerGov. John HickenlooperSec. of State Scott GesslerSubject: Testimony on HB14-1062 Approval Voting ActI speak on HB14-1062, the Approval Voting Act, from the perspective of a declared candidate for Governor in 2014. I am not a Republican nor a Democrat.I support the Approval Voting Act, with an amendment to more effectively introduce multiple-choice voting in Colorado.The Approval Voting Act is similar to the Voter Choice Act, HB08-1378, passed eight years ago.Both bills introduce a multiple-choice voting system capable of ameliorating problems inherent in our vote-for-only-one (single choice, plurality winner) voting system. In the vote-for-only-one system it is very easy for minor party candidates to spoil an election, throwing the election to, take your pick - a Democrat or a Republican, by getting just a couple percent of the vote. Our vote-for-only-one system presents voters with the dilemma whether to vote for the best candidate or vote against the worst candidate by voting for the candidate most likely to defeat the worst candidate. Vote-for-only-one forces many voters to vote only for Democrats and Republicans, regardless of the qualities of the candidates, out of concern for throwing away their vote. Both bills limit the use of a multiple-choice voting system to local, non-partisan elections, presumably to gain experience in small elections, familiarize voters with multiple-choice voting, and work out any unforeseen problems, before implementing a multiple-choice election system state-wide.It is time now, eight years after passing the Voter Choice Act, for the Colorado Legislature to reform the election system to use a multiple-choice election system state-wide. I propose an amendment to bill 1062, to wit:AMENDMENT: The Governor and Secretary of State shall submit draft legislation to the Legislature, on or before March 1, 2015, to amend Colorado election law to use a multiple-choice voting system for all Colorado state elections, beginning in 2016.The political polarization, divisiveness, and gridlock that characterize federal and state governments in America are a direct result of a two-party system of government. To repeat: Political polarization, divisiveness, and gridlock are a direct result of two-party government.If this seems like a radical statement, remember warnings of our nation's founding fathers about the fragility of democracy and formation of a two-party system. President George Washington said in his farewell address, "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. . . . The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”And listen to our second President, John Adams, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”As the committee deliberates bill 1062, please consider two questions. First, is it truly in the best interests of your constituents, the people who voted for you and the people who voted for someone else, to have an election system that guarantees Colorado will continue to have only two political parties represented in Colorado state government?Second, who among us might have a personal vested interest in maintaining two party government in Colorado and vote-for-only-one elections?Please, put the 'spirit of party' aside long enough to create a multi-party government in Colorado.Sincerely,Harry Hempy
During questioning, committee vice chair Joe Salazar, argued that the current election system is fair because 'voters of each party elect their candidates'. I responded by pointing out that VOTERS DO NOT GET TO VOTE FOR THEIR PARTY'S CANDIDATES in the vast majority of CO state races. Party nominees are usually decided by an undefined group of party insiders, leaving no contest - nothing to voters to decide - in the party's primary election. Over the last 4 years, only 6% of state offices up for election were contested in Democratic primaries and 13% of offices were contested in Republican primaries.I put an announcement of the GPCO Annual Meeting and Nominating Convention on the state party website. There is also an announcement on the facebook page, which I think Bill posted.
Hi. I just saw this. I agree with the proposal.Note details of the annual meeting have been posted on coloradogreenparty.org and GPCO facebook page.
I would support this resolution on 'general principles'.One comment, though, on this statement from the resolution: "As an example, a corporation convicted of murder shall be dissolved with the proceeds distributed to the community, i.e. given the death sentence."I'm not in favor of the death penalty for human beings, so the sentence is troubling.How about this: "As an example, a corporation convicted of murder, treason, theft, etc shall be incarcerated, i.e., shall not do business, for the same number of years a human being would be incarcerated."Also, I believe the Governor of Colorado has the authority to dissolve a corporation that is not acting in the public interest, with the proceeds going to the public. (constitutional power of eminent domain)
My proposal for a new election system for Colorado is this: (critique is welcome)1. Recognized political parties nominate 1 to 3 candidates for each office using a caucus/nominating convention process (just like all parties do today). 2. Standalone candidates, running without a party nomination, declare their candidacy for office (just as is done today), but are put in the primary election instead of having to wait for the general election. [Whether standalone candidates need to gather signatures to petition onto the primary ballot is an open question.][Note: The ability of parties to control who will be the party's nominee(s) is not impacted in any way.]3. The primary election will be restructured. The current system of holding separate primary elections for each major party and each minor party in which there is a contested office will be discontinued. Instead, there will be one primary election in which all candidates participate and all registered voters may vote. The purpose of the primary election shall be to narrow the field for the general election, leaving only top viable, credible candidates in the general election. I suggest the top 5 candidates advance to the general.[Note: Problems with the current primary system are legion: The current primary system produces voter suppression of a magnitude that eclipses Sec. of State Gessler's voter suppression efforts. Taxpayer money is used to fund party primaries. Major parties are given a primary election even if the party has no contested races. Why?][Note: The CNES proposal is that the top 4 candidates for each office, together with candidates who receive at least 3% of the votes cast, advance to the general election. This provision needs to change - read on.]4. Primary elections will use a multiple-choice voting method in which voters may vote for up to 5 candidates, ranking their preferences for each office first to fifth. The top 5 candidates emerging from the primary will be determined using the single transferable vote protocol (STV).5. General elections will use a multiple-choice voting method in which voters may vote for up to 5 candidates, ranking their preferences for each office first to fifth. If no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, the winner will be determined using instant runoff protocol (IRV).[Note: Multiple choice voting is essential to removing the 'spoiler effect' and 'throwing my vote away dilemma' of the current single-vote, plurality-winner system (FPTP). I believe that the 'throwing my vote away dilemma' is the biggest obstacle to a voter's decision to vote for a minority party candidate.][Note: To be clear, this proposal does not directly address proportional representation in the legislature. The proposal, with multiple-choice voting, does open the door for minority party candidates to actually be elected, however.][Note: This proposal does not address the problem of the influence of money on elections. Until the Citizen United decision is overturned, progress getting big money out of elections will be difficult. But I will campaign for the CO Elections Division to provide information from all declared candidates and supply candidate information as an integral component of the primary and general election process. In theory, at least, all candidates will have their information/message in front of the voting public at election time. You could call this a 'poor state's version of publicly-funded elections in the Citizens United era.']
Sounds good. Note: Candidates must be affiliated with the Green Party 30 days before the nominating convention.
I would favor one of the later dates for the state nominating meeting because of time constraints. GPCO rules say that candidates shall inform the party of their intention to seek the GP nomination at least 45 days before the meeting and be registered as a Green 30 days before the meeting.We may want to suspend the rules to allow nominations from the floor at the meeting.
