Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Attached is the resolution version as passed at the State Meeting. At least some of the above comments had been communicated in other ways in time to be incorporated into the resolution.At this point in time the primary purpose is to improve awareness and promote discussion. The goal is passage of the Move To Amend version of the constitutional amendment. By adding consequences to the concept of corporate personhood, perhaps we can gain the support of some corporations.
I have a few concerns, including taking control of a party’s candidates away from the party. Each party should, I believe, be able to agree on principles and then to hold their own candidates to those principles. Letting anyone run in any party, and anyone vote in any party, seems counter to that principle. I think it is more likely that the fear of electing a Republican has kept people from voting Green and is the bigger problem. IRV eliminates that fear and could allow Greens to attract more 1st tier votes and quite possibly to dramatically increase the number of Green party members. This is to me far preferable to the possibility of electing Republicans by possibly drawing away Democratic votes and continuing the trend to the political right that the two major parties have experienced over the past 30-40 years. That isn't really the kind of power I want to wield as a minor party. While neither major party addresses true core issues, one party is still more receptive to ideas that help the 99% at least a little.Abolishing primaries and then having candidates campaign to the entire electorate twice may have the consequence of giving even greater advantage to moneyed candidates, or more accurately those on whose behalf money puts up attack ads against the other candidates. I think the problem this initiative is trying to solve is the excessive role of money in elections. The better way to do that is to support the Constitutional amendment language of MoveToAmend. It seems to me that voters are not so much turned off by the Primaries as they are by the very real fact that their vote counts for so little these days, and many (? - not enough) of them get that the influence of money is at the heart of the problem.IRV seems to me a good first step, and one that is achievable. Once that is achieved, and then we get MoveToAmend's Corporations are not People and Money is not Speech passed, then we will have a more level playing field in which to propose proportional voting methods.
One item we could discuss is the posting of resolutions on the website. We passed a number last year, but they are not posted. I suspect that the majority of resolutions passed over the years are not posted. There are two “positions & resolutions” pages on the website, and they are different. One is under the “About Us” tab in the upper menu bar, and the other is on the lower menu bar.Michael HaugheyAJ Greens
I'm OK with the change if it includes a proviso that we get sufficient info to vet the candidate also on March 1. It might be good to also include a time limit – after this election it goes back to 45 days.Michael HaugheyAJ Greens
Another restaurant possibility: http://www.eatgarbanzo.com/ – they have meat and vegan and special dietary options (according to a review I read): HIGHLANDS RANCH location: 1100 Sergeant Jon Stiles Drive, Highlands Ranch, CO 80129, 303.471.6100
Hi Tanya,My note did suggest additional time for resolutions. It is presently 15 minutes. I think 30 minutes might be better to reserve for that item.I like the idea of having an agenda pretty much set before the meeting so we don't have to spend a lot of time making changes.I should be available for any needed voting until about 1 PM Tyesday Colorado time - after that I'll be in transit until after midnight.If a vote is needed on the agenda during my transit time, you can count me as agree to whatever the group comes up with.Thanks,Michael HaugheyAJ Greens
I would like to suggest additional time for resolutions – perhaps borrow a little time from state restructuring.Michael HaugheyAJ Greens
I agree with Option #1. Council members can still read the blog posts and object on the council forum if they feel the need, where a decision could be made to remove an objectionable post that got by. Michael HaugheyAJ Greens
Many thanks Chris for many long hours negotiating an agreement to allow us to use the space.Now lets get the word out, and maybe even an agenda?Are we doing resolutions this year?Thanks,Michael HaugheyAJ Greens Chairperson
Agree, and would be OK with $300 as an approximate amount – we don't have to spend it all, and a little over would be OK as long as it does not dig deeply into available funds.
