Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
GPCO Procedures say
3.5.4 Proposals for ACTION will be called by the current convener/facilitator, who will announce a week period of Consensus discussion of a proposal. . . . If, at the end of the first week, we have reached quorum and have had full support and no proposed amendments or blocking concerns, the proposal will be accepted by consensus. . . .
Full support means unanimous to me. I'll respect the facilitator's interpretation, of course.
I am persuaded by Michael Haughey's position:
Posted by: Michael Haughey « on: August 25, 2015, 05:47:03 PM » Do not agree as worded. Too much micro-managing. . . . It also does not address supporting other party candidates when there is no Green Party candidate for a particular office.I think it needs work before voting. As worded I would vote no.
My position is BLOCK. At this point only three chapters are in agreement with the proposal (Denver, Douglas, and Pikes Peak). I think the general membership should be allowed to vote on this proposal at the annual meeting. Failing that, I call on the sponsors of this proposal to withdraw it. Harry Hempy, Greater Boulder Greens
We have announced Skype will be the vehicle for remote attendance. Have logistics for the Skype call been worked out?With just six days left we need to get connection information out to the membership now.
Thanks, Andrea. I will post two replies. This reply addresses a technical bylaws consistency issue. The other reply will address your concerns about losing control of the party.
"Members of a Green local may vote on state issues at general state meetings and may serve on the Council."
You are right. This sentence in section 3.2 is inconsistent with the proposed bylaws change which says members cannot serve on Council unless they register Green with the state. The first part of the sentence - "Members of a Green local may vote on state issues at general state meetings" - has problems also. Voting rights at annual meetings is well-covered elsewhere in the bylaws and doesn't fit logically in section 3.2 (which defines membership requirements).I agree with deleting the sentence. With that change the proposed text for bylaws section 3.2 becomes:
Article III, section 2 of the bylaws shall be amended to read:Membership in the Green Party of Colorado is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, national origin, religion, etc. A member shall subscribe to the Ten Key Values.
and be registered with the state of Colorado as affiliated with the Green Party of Colorado and maintain that registration. Members of a Green local may vote on state issues at general state meetings and may serve on the Council.Is this acceptable?
All a rank and file member needs to do is simply register and re-register. But officers and chapters have a different responsibility.
I agree with your quote and I think we are on the same page. Would you be willing to add text to this bylaws proposal to allow members to vote in other party's primary elections? I think this text would would work:
Article III, section 2 of the bylaws shall be amended to read:Membership in the Green Party of Colorado is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, national origin, religion, etc. A member shall subscribe to the Ten Key Values
and be registered with the state of Colorado as affiliated with the Green Party of Colorado and maintain that registration. Members of a Green local may vote on state issues at general state meetings and may serve on the Council.Thanks for all your commentary on party affiliation. I'll try to respond to all the comments here:
But the state law says they have to actually be registered to vote as Greens
To be clear, state law says they have to actually be registered as Greens to vote IN A GREEN PARTY PRIMARY ELECTION.Under Colorado's closed primary system, the Colorado secretary of state must prevent a voter from receiving ballots for more than one party in a primary election. Until the Green Party of Colorado has a primary election, there is no legal incentive for a voter to register as a Green. Voter affiliation is irrelevant in general elections. [You will remember we tried to create a Green Party primary election in 2014 with Bill Bartlett and I contesting for the gubernatorial nomination, until Bill had to drop out.]
pledging allegiance to the 10KV certainly isn't enough in the eyes of state law. . . . I'd much rather not leave our party open to the possibility of such ideological dilution.
The state does nothing to protect the Green Party's ideological purity. State law does not care about a voters ideology, pledges of allegiance or the 10KV. Any registered voter can affiliate with any political party, anytime, with no questions asked by the state. The only thing the secretary of state cares about is who to send primary election ballots to. Each political party sets its own membership rules.
I . . . take issue with the idea that voting for a Democrat anywhere would ever be the "only meaningful vote."
Let me explain. Boulder County is a safe district for Democrats. All public officials elected in Boulder County are Democrats and this has been true for a long time. People who vote in the Democratic primary in Boulder effectively decide the winner of the general election. The outcome of the general election (for county offices and Colorado legislators) is a foregone conclusion. That is why the Democratic primary is the only meaningful election in Boulder County.
registering Green in those places [safe districts] is even more important if we're ever going to offer a viable alternative to the two major parties.
Green candidates in Colorado typically receive about 3 times as many votes as there are registered Greens. Having more registered Greens doesn't necessarily mean Green candidates will get more votes.We are playing in an unfair election system. I believe Green candidates will become viable only when we have a fair election system. A fair election system must use a voting method, such as ranked choice voting, that works when more than two candidates are on the ballot. A fair election system must allow candidates without financial resources to speak and be heard by the electorate. We need publicly-funded election campaigns.The Green Party platform calls for replacement of the party primary system with instantaneous run-off voting. In my view, IRV with ranked choice voting is the best hope for Green Party candidates to become viable. This is why my first passion is reforming Colorado Election law.
We know already they [the Democratic Party] don't support non-Dems for candidates, right?
It depends on the meaning of "support".In terms of party nominations, a party can only nominate a candidate affiliated with its own party. Two parties cannot nominate the same candidate because, under Colorado's closed primary system, a person cannot affiliate with more than one party. [Several states have no concept of party affiliation in their election system. Of course, they don't use a closed primary system like Colorado's.]In terms of voting in a general election, Democrats gave great support to Martin Wirth (G) in his race for CO SD2. Martin got 27% of the vote, if I remember correctly. Democrats chose not to run a candidate against Martin and the Republican candidate.
If someone truly cares about who we are and what we do, what our vision is, there shouldn't be an issue with being a Green if they are going to serve in a role responsible for helping grow the Green Party of Colorado.
First, I think I agree with this quote. I am agreeing with the part of the proposal that requires party officers and council to maintain their Green affiliation. Second, for rank-and-file Greens (not officers or council) if someone truly cares about who we are and what we do, what our vision is, there shouldn't be an issue with voting in another party's primary election if the Green Party has no primary.This is why I'm asking to amend section 3.2.
Let's say the Boulder chapter's membership is now majority non-Greens. Then what?
The entire membership would be Greens, having pledged their support of the 10 Key Values and committing to act based on those values.Just because someone (other than a party officer or a candidate) tells the Colorado Secretary of State they want to exercise their right vote in a Democratic or Republican primary, doesn't mean they aren't Green.Remove the barriers to participation in the Green Party.
Audio/Visual – Will we have ability to display information to audience? (e.g. Treasurer’s Report)
Good question. We need a computer and projection device. I can supply a laptop, but don't have a projector.Presumably there is internet access. Also, do we have the Skype logistics figured out?
Need to figure out options for lunch.
How about asking people if they want to order a catered lunch during registration? Would we have time to phone in the order (around 10:00 am) for delivery at 11:30?
LClark: Suggesting we re-think amount of time spent discussing Sanders campaign.
It looks like we will be voting on a bylaws change that says, in part,
A Green Local must agree to . . . Openly support only the national candidates selected by Green convention . . . .
I think discussion of the Sanders campaign will come up during discussion of this bylaws change. So we could drop the “Sanders for President – a Green Perspective” agenda item.
How did your attempt to change Boulder's bylaws to do the same go, Harry?
Greater Boulder Greens did not consider bylaws changes at its August meeting, due to more pressing issues.Its just as well, I think, because opening up the party will be better discussed at the state party level.
Rationale for Opening the Green Party:Colorado election law systematically and unfairly discriminates against the Green Party (and other minor parties) and makes a large increase in Green Party affiliations highly unlikely. In Boulder County, which has elected only Democrats to office for several years, the ONLY meaningful election is the Democratic Party primary election. It hardly seems reasonable to ask a voter to forego their only chance to cast a meaningful ballot, in order to join the Green Party. In strong Republican districts the problem is reversed, with only the Republican Party primary being meaningful. Colorado's closed primary system forces Boulder County voters who want their vote to have any impact to register Democrat (for at least one day). How is the Green Party supposed to grow in an environment of closed primaries and one-sided (D or R) districts where only the primary election matters? The Green Party should become an inclusive party; should open up. We want to attract people who will work towards a "Green" society as represented by the Ten Key Values. If we require our members to un-affiliate from all other political parties, we will not grow - the election system works against us. Greens must resist the dictates of Colorado election law, written by Democrats and Republicans to establish and maintain two-party control of government. Playing by their rules only strengthens the divisive, exclusionary, closed two-party system the Green Party wants to displace. There is every reason for the Green Party of Colorado to embrace people who want a "Green" society as represented by the Ten Key Values, as full members.
I have no objection to adding good faith efforts to run candidates, fund raise, achieve gender balance, empower oppressed communities, and increase Green registrations to a chapter's responsibilities. And I accept the requirement that Green candidates and Green Party officials be registered as Green Party affiliates.But there is still a requirement in the bylaws in Article III, section 2 that members of the Colorado Green Party who are not officers or running for public office must register with the Colorado Secretary of State as Green Party affiliates. This requirement disenfranchises voters who subscribe to the Ten Key Values and would work in the Green Party to work for a "Green" society, but also want an opportunity to cast a primary election ballot. (Note: In Boulder County, the only meaningful partisan election is the Democratic Party primary. It doesn't seem fair to ask a voter not to vote, in order to associate with the Green Party.)So, I propose this addition to the proposed amendment:
Article III, section 2 of the bylaws shall be amended to read:Membership in the Green Party of Colorado is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation, race, national origin, religion, etc. A member shall subscribe to the Ten Key Values
and be registered with the state of Colorado as affiliated with the Green Party of Colorado and maintain that registration. Members of a Green local may vote on state issues at general state meetings and may serve on the Council.Michael, You wrote:
I do not see the need to switch parties to vote in the [presidential] primary.
Lots of people get confused about this. There is no presidential primary election in Colorado.The only reason a Bernie supporter would need to register as a Democrat is to attend Democratic Party precinct caucus on March 1, 2015 and be a delegate for him at county, state and national Democratic Party conventions. As you say,
We need a multi-party system and IRV.
