Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree with Harry that we should let the potential candidates explore possibilities and make up their minds before we descend upon them. Some people in the Green Party seem eager to demand from potential candidates a standard of purity that they themselves do not uphold. There will be plenty of time for vetting if the potential candidates decide to go any further than merely expressing interest.
I am surprised to see that the location will be in the Denver metropolitan area. At a Poudre Valley Greens meeting in January, we were discussing the advisability of holding the annual meeting on the Western Slope in Grand Junction and Dave Bell himself assured us that “plans are already underway” at the state level for holding the annual meeting in Grand Junction.
Andrea, the Poudre Valley Green chapter has decided by majority vote not to participate in voting on the forum on this proposal, so there is no need to hold the window open for us. Thank you.
Andrea, I request a one-week extension to the voting window. The Poudre Valley Greens are attempting to discuss and decide using an on-line process. Additional time would be appreciated.
I agree that running a candidate for governor in 2014 helped the party registration numbers. I don't see any remarkable benefit from Jill Stein's campaign, which is sad, because I liked her a lot as a candidate. I have attached two pages. Please let me know if they do not show.One page shows the secretary of state's data for the month of January in every year back to 2004. Green registration was fading then, but it shows an upward jump in each presidential election year for the past three elections. There was no bounce from the 2006 mid-term election (look at January 2007) and no bounce from the 2010 mid-term election (look at January 2011) but there was a good bounce from the 2014 mid-term election (look at January 2015). Then the party bleeds members as Greens switch to Dem by January 2016, the date by which they have to be registered as Dems in order to caucus for Bernie Sanders in March 2016. After Bernie doesn't get the nomination, they return to the Green Party, and the January 2017 numbers are right where you would expect them to be given the trend over previous years. The trends for Larimer County (that's the Poudre Valley Greens) and Denver County follow the same pattern. The percentages, shown in the graph below it, follow the same general trend as the raw numbers above, although the lines are flatter.The other page shows the numbers for the month of January after a presidental election, with an equation fitted to the data. Simple regression is a fabulous fit. R-squared of 0.977. That's for the raw numbers. For the percentages, the R-squared is 0.981. I can get the R-squared for the raw numbers up to 0.999 with a non-linear Gaussian curve and up to 1.0 with a polynomial cubic or quadratic regression. But essentially it's gradual, steady improvement in a straight line. The most striking changes are the drop and recovery as Greens desert to caucus for Bernie and then return to the fold when he doesn't get the nomination.
Aha, that's the answer to my question. The process for challenging a “good until challenged appointment” is to run a proposal. This must be another one of those undocumented procedures.
Thank you for the reply. Yes, I realize that the GPCO site is this forum.My anti-virus protection is updated nearly every day. Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that anti-virus programs do not protect against login information being stolen from insecure sites. Both the http and the https route to GPCO are insecure.
The text reads “The sponsors of this proposal believe that …” Is this a proposal? I was unaware that there was such a position that had fallen vacant and needed to be filled.Regarding a “good until challenged appointment”, what is the process for challenging an appointment? I'm not planning to challenge Sheila. I think she is good. But Andrea's self-appointment as facilitator has been objected to twice and has not been put to a vote.
So the wording we are seeing contains all the fixes that need to be made in order to reflect the most up-to-date wording of the by-laws and the changes to the wording that would need to be made if the proposal passes? If so, thank you. Harry, do you agree that the wording is correct now?
Andrea, you were able to fix the part about the relevant section and the local versus state, after I pointed it out. Perhaps you can change the wording of the proposal to clear up this additional confusion that has surfaced. Considering the level of interest in this proposal, I think it is bound to end up in voting no matter what the wording is, so perhaps we should work on getting it right in this folder.
There is no mention in the PV Greens by-laws regarding mentions sponsoring or co-sponsoring of proposals.
Per Section 3.1 of the GPCO Bylaws, “A Green local must present its proposed bylaws for approval, and be approved by 60% of the voting Greens at a state party meeting, or by the state council.”Isn't this a clarification of the state by-laws, not a local chapter's by-laws?
Dave, your post is hardly consistent with a request to “dial back the rhetoric”. Narcissistic, wildly hyperbolic, flimsy, wishy washy, disloyal, infidelity, Mr. Glass House. Come on.
Is the Longmont Green Party still planning to address concerns about the anti-oppression language in the by-laws? If so, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power has a helpful review of the origin of the notion and some discussion on various sides of the issue. It's well worth the read.
