[Pnp-wg] "Ballots", signatures, speeches and such
Greg Gerritt
gerritt@mindspring.com
Fri, 27 May 2005 12:13:26 -0400
The alternative is to actually do things to help all of them equally, and
think the party needs to actively promote candidates prior to the primaries,
or at least help them to connect to state parties. I do strongly agree that
the candidate sand their campiagns do have to carry the ball themselves for
the most part. greg
> From: Steve Kramer <scooter@guisarme.net>
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:44:05 -0400 (EDT)
> To: pnp-wg@gp-us.org
> Subject: [Pnp-wg] "Ballots", signatures, speeches and such
>
> Thanks to Phil for bringing up these matters and giving his state's
> feelings on them. I have a slightly different take on what's going on.
>
> First, I think we're agreed on the structure of the ballot papers at the
> convention itself: a sheet of paper with a blank. And again, there should
> be voting instructions to the Delegates as to how to cast their votes, and
> to the state reporters on how to interpret them.
>
> I disliked the way that speeches at the convention were handled - enough
> so that I found myself helping to collect signatures for candidates I
> didn't support, so they would be able to speak. Personally, I would be in
> favor of starting the whole thing an hour or two early, have a sign-up
> sheet for those who would like to speak, and allow - as an example - five
> minutes for non-candidates and fifteen for candidates.
>
> What I find particularly problematic is having some approved list of
> candidates for promotion by the GPUS. It strikes me as too similar to the
> Democratic Party's "thumb-on-the-scale" approach to their primaries. (As
> it was, the Party was accused of showing favoritism just in posting a
> running tally of the Delegate counts.)
>
> I believe that the primary source for information about a candidate should
> be that candidate's campaign itself, period. I also believe in Jello
> Biafra's statement that in order to influence the media on this score, we
> must become the media. The GPUS can help along the process, but I believe
> must do so in a strictly non-aligned way. I believe that the GPUS, in
> their mailings and announcements, and on their Web page, can harness the
> power of Internet communications by listing favorable non-partisan
> organizations (politics1.com, LWV, etc.), independent Green organizations
> (Global Greens, GDI, FCG, etc.), and blogs and Websites (Ken Sain, Common
> Dreams, CounterPunch, Progressive Review, etc.) We should, as part of the
> Presidential exploratory process, seek out those news sources in advance
> of any candidates coming forward, and ask if we may link to them as source
> for news about the Green Presidential primary. Individual campaigns may
> also "opt-in" by means of announcements, press releases, etc.
>
> This would allow us to disseminate a wealth of information about the
> candidates without specifically favoring any one.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Steve Kramer
> Maryland
>
>
>
> On Thu, 26 May 2005, Greg Gerritt wrote:
>
>> Phil's ideaas make sense, and I would like to see them fleshed out. greg
>>
>>> From: "Phil Huckelberry" <phil@mcleancountygreens.org>
>>> Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 13:42:39 -0500 (CDT)
>>> To: pnp-wg@gp-us.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] signatures
>>>
>>> Gary writes:
>>>> I view things differently than Owen on this point. Rather than limit or
>>>> exclude a candidate, a ballot template would actually encourage a testing
>>>> of the grassroots waters to see if there was support at all. And if the
>>>> required signatures were easily gathered by a serious candidate, it seems
>>>> to me that it will only serve to galvanize organisational support for
>>>> candidates and get them started early. A ballot also tells Greens in ALL
>>>> states that the candidate is running. Without this, the GPUS essentially
>>>> provides no support for a candidate's campaign (which is primarily
>>>> information and organisation) since to provide for one, but not all, is
>>>> unfair.
>>>>
>>>> If the Prez nomination isn't a popularity contest, I don't know what it
>>>> is.
>>>
>>> I see (at least) five separate issues here:
>>>
>>> 1. Form of ballot at the convention.
>>> 2. Speeches at the convention.
>>> 3. Form of ballots for state primary/preference votes.
>>> 4. GPUS official announced list of candidates.
>>> 5. How we intend to promote the process (and the candidates).
>>>
>>> Here's how I am currently synthesizing all of this:
>>>
>>> 1. The ballots at the convention should be 100% write-in. No lists of
>>> names on any formal ballots.
>>>
>>> 2. Only candidates with demonstrated support in the form of a significant
>>> percentage of declared delegates - say, three percent - and who have
>>> submitted petitions (along the lines Gary has been talking about) will be
>>> given speech time.
>>>
>>> 3. Issue recommended guidelines only?
>>>
>>> 4. Here's where the petitions really come in, I think. Collecting
>>> signatures will be a way of demonstrating sufficient support so as to be
>>> included on GPUS's official announced list of candidates. This list will
>>> be transmitted to the state parties for reference.
>>>
>>> 5. Having a FORMAL GPUS-announced list, I think, would aid this process
>>> significantly. Set no deadline.
>>>
>>> Our state convention was a nightmare last year in part because we were
>>> forced to hold it in late February due to petitioning requirements, and as
>>> of that time, we had no idea who the actual candidates were. GPUS did not
>>> help us at all, as GPUS was including blatantly false candidates on the
>>> website. In my opinion, this also severely hurt turnout at our
>>> convention; since the big deal was holding a preference vote, but no
>>> Greens in Illinois had a clue who any of the people involved were, and we
>>> couldn't even get a straight answer out of Nader, it was hard to get
>>> anyone to care. And this in turn crippled our petition drive, which
>>> really never got off the ground.
>>>
>>> Some of the above ideas are off the cuff but I'm curious to see if others
>>> see them as synthesizing some of the different thoughts circulating.
>>>
>>> Phil Huckelberry
>>> Illinois Green Party
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pnp-wg mailing list
>>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pnp-wg mailing list
>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>
>
> --
> Steve Kramer || scooter (at) guisarme dot net ||
> _____________________ ===================================================
> | __/^\__ ,-^,| "Jesus looked at them and said,
> |/~ \_ { / | 'With men it is impossible, but not with God;
> \/\ |! | for all things are possible with God.'"
> / / ) |___
> (_ \ \ / Luke 10:27 (RSV)
> ~v^ ?_,-'
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg