Green News and Opinion

The full story is at Common Dreams.

Read more!

The article will no doubt be made unavailable soon, so read it now if you want to know what's going on.

PS...the link may force you to watch a brief video, which you can by-pass by hitting the "skip" link in the upper right hand corner.

Read more!

In an letter at Red Orbit, Jeff Toste of Providence says that he got more individual votes for him than the Democrat or Republican did, but the straight party ticket voters all went either Republican or Democrat, as there was no Green straight party ticket.

Toste does point out that, even if we did have a straight party opportunity, the straight party vote of entrenched Republicans and Democrats will always be stronger, and independents will be on an uneven playing field any way you slice it.

It does seem to me though that we Greens must do something really hard, and that is, take the First Step: Admitting to yourself that Democrats and Republicans will do most anything to ensure the survival of the sweet deal they have going today, and that we can't change them.

That means, accept that it's a calculated risk to attack straight party voting, ballot access laws, debates that are rigged, and media that will only ridicule or belittle. All are true, but we must ask ourselves which battles we are going to fight, and how best to fight them. Sorry for the violent imagery, but that's sort of how I see this.

Some fighting techniques include using leverage, agility and the opponent's strength and size against him to win. There may be no political corollary to this, but somehow I think there is. We must look for chinks in the armor and use them. We need leadership that wants to use opportunity and imagination to win not only elections, but victories at every level. If we don't have but a tiny budget, we must learn how to maximize it's impact. If we can't get on national TV, let's get on as many local stations as we can, with a coherent and unified message taken from the grassroots of the party. If we can't get on the ballot let's steal their primaries where we can, and run as "Green Republicans" or "Green Democrats". If the media won';t cover us, let's become the media and refuse to give in.

Here's the thing. The conservative movement in this nation did this. We are not breaking new ground, just using the soil already busted up by earlier people. For example, the book "None Dare Call It Treason" was a best-seller published by the author and sold from car trunks and at gatherings of like-minded folks. Why can we not do the same? "Democrats and Republicans in Your Kid's Piggy Bank: How they are stealing from our children to pay for their war and tax breaks and what you can do about it." might sell well at flea markets, yard sales, organic gardening shows, anti-war events and impeachment rallies. "A Green Tomorrow: Today's Voters Determine the Future" would perhaps sell well at Solar Power and Alternative Energy events, Sierra Club events, and Clean Air events. "Black and Green: Tomorrow's Green Black Leaders Speak Out" might go well at Malcolm X events, community events and Reparations events. "Red, White, Blue and Green: America's Battle for Jobs, Justice and Dignity in a Green Future" could do well at Labor Day events, union halls and picket lines.

None of these books exist. Is that "The Man's" fault? We can act as if it is, but that breaks one of our key values, Personal and Global responsibility. There are thousands of places across this nation where we can get newspapers printed for under a thousand dollars. Places where we can get on cable access TV. Places where we can speak at County or City Council meetings, and have those comments played on TV. Why are we not doing these things?

Why am I not doing these things?

Read more!

The article, and it is frightening, is over at Washblog

I'm not sure who it was, but someone said that elections don't matter, so long as I get to count the votes.

Read more!

Yesterday I got a note from Ian Wilder of NY. He pointed out that the article I wrote titled Election official in Albany, NY says IRV, others, are worst bills he's ever seen

Oops! Turns out this is not Albany, NY, but Albany OR.

Geeze...guess I should read first, link later, eh?

Thanks Ian!

Read more!

You are invited to join us in a rally designed to bring our troops home to their loved ones as soon as possible.

Scheduled on the Fourth Anniversary of President George W. Bush flying “Top-Gun” style onto the USS Abraham Lincoln, MAR is a rally created to remind all Americans of the farce and disgrace the White House has brought upon our great nation. Held at high noon on the First of May 2007, this rally will be hosted by a number of American Veterans, our friends and allies on the steps of the San Francisco Veterans Building, 401 Van Ness Avenue, to call for the return of our brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces stationed in Iraq. Organizations sponsoring and hosting the event include Officers and Members of:
the Alexander Hamilton Post #448 of the American Legion, the San Francisco Chapter of Veterans For Peace, the Veterans Community Action Network (V-CAN) and Code PINK.

This rally is being coordinated by John Caldera, San Francisco Commissioner, Member of the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Commission. For more information, please write Post448@aol.com.

Read more!

Steel Workers at Continental Tire have set up a website to carry their message to us. The website, Solidarity at Continental includes information on the company, the tire industry, actions you can take to support the Steelworkers, and district websites.

Labor, organized and unorganized, is critical to the success of any nation, including our own. When labor is weakened, we all are weakened.

Read more!

David McCorquodale sent a message to the GNC listserv calling for articles, photos, OpEds and cartoons for the next issue of Green Pages. Get busy folks! To read his entire letter, including guidelines for Green Pages, just hit the "Read more!" link below...
This is a remainder to submit your Op.Eds., Cartoons, Pictures or State Reports to Green Pages for the Summer issue. Please pass this on to your states, caucuses and committees.

Green Pages, the national newspaper of the Green Party of the United States,is looking for concise opinion pieces (op-eds) for the summer, 2007 issue, as well as
timely reports from states, caucuses, and committees. (Please see reports guidelines below.)

Opinion submissions are evaluated by the entire editorial board on the basis of relevance, timeliness, writing quality, research quality and diversity. A
publishable opinion piece is informative, grounded in fact, and uses logical argument to make its case. Topics specific to Greenissues preferred.

DEADLINES AND WHERE TO SEND YOUR GREEN NEWS

-Op-eds (max 800 words) and letters to the editor (max 200 words) should be sent by May 15 to greenpages@greens.org.

-Unsolicied news briefs (max 350 words) should be sent by May 15 to greenpages@greens.org .

-Cartoons, illustrations, and charts should be sent by May 15 to ninth.st@verizon.net.

-Photos for op-eds, photos of Greens in action for unsolicited news briefs, with captions and photographer credits, should be sent by May 15 to the section editor who is receiving the related article. Please indicate forwhich story they are intended.

-Head shots for op-eds should be sent by May 15 to Deyva Arthur at darthur@nycap.rr.com.

-State reports (max 300 words) or Caucus or committee reports (max 300 words) should be sent by May 15 to mccorq@comcast.net or contact if expecting late breaking news. Please note that any state report concerning election results, it may be included in the elections section.

-Photos or logos for state/caucus/committee reports, with captions and photographer credits, should be sent by May 15 to mccorq@comcast.net. Please indicate which
report they concern.

***If you have story ideas that don't fall into the above categories, get in touch with us at greenpages@greens.org.

***All text should be sent as an attached Word document. Include a byline indicating your Green affiliation (i.e. in what state, if any, you are registered). Word counts will be strictly enforced. Submissions that are longer than the word counts
suggested above or that are received after the due date will not be considered.***

REPORTS GUIDELINES

Whenever possible, we strongly encourage you to identify Greens from your state/caucus/committee with a journalism/media background to prepare the state
report and photos. In most cases, the person/s who have knowledge about what has happened in the past couple of months would best be used as a source for the reporter rather than actually writing the report.

Here are some tips to keep in mind:

-Reports should be kept to a maximum of 300 words. If you have a longer feature in mind about major events in your state, or a profile of a Green officeholder or
activist who has accomplished something of note that would make a good feature story for Green Pages, please contact Deyva Arthur at darthur@nycap.rr.com as soon as possible with a brief query.

-Reports should have an emphasis on newsworthiness. Some examples: accomplishments, recognitions, trends, major plans(e.g., the state plans to run a full slate of candidates next year), new projects in the works, etc.

-Think about your piece visually and find out early on who can provide a photograph to run with the text.

-Reports are news briefs and should follow basic journalism standards. In general we suggest that reports follow traditional inverted pyramid format (i.e. the most important information should be at the top-if the editors need to cut the report due to space constraints, they should be able to cut the last paragraph first, then the second-to-last paragraph, etc.)

-Use the third person ("they"), not first person("we") in reporting about your states/caucus/committee activities. Avoid editorializing in the reports-just report on the facts about what's happening in the state/caucus/committee. Stick to the basics: what, when, where, why, who, and how.

-Consider using brief quotes to give voice to Greens, to offer different viewpoints and perspectives, and for reader interest.

-Be concise! Edit out any extra words or phrases. Identify somebody ahead of time who can edit your piece to cut out the fat.

-Avoid cliches. We get a lot of reports that include lines like, "It isn't easy being Green in XX state," or "XX state is working hard and is Green and growing," or other generalizations. While we appreciate the sentiments, space for reports is limited, and we ask that you focus on issues and actions.

-Avoid long lists and other information that make for dull reading.

-Plan accordingly. Identify one or more writers, photographers, and editor/coordinators early on. We really appreciate early submissions. Late submissions cannot be accepted.

-Submit text as a Word document. Include a byline indicating the reporter's Green affiliation (i.e. in what state, if any, they are registered).

-Photos should be JPGs, 200 dpi or larger, at a physical size (height and width) that they should be printed at. Minimum size is 1.875 inches wide(one column wide--for head shots, for example. Submit larger photos if they include many people or
complicated activity.). Include who should be credited for the photo, and the photographer's Green affiliation (i.e. in what state, if any, they are registered). Be sure to include a one-sentence caption with the photo to explain the content of the photo to readers.

For complete submission guidelines, the Green Pages editorial policy and a style sheet, visit: http://www.gp.org/greenpages/submissions.php

Still have questions? Reach us at greenpages@greens.org.

David McCorquodale
Delaware delegate and Co-chair, Green Pages

Read more!

The GNC passed a resolution to change the way that delegation size is determined. The new rules establish a variety of ways to determine state party strength. For example, in addition to "how many people live in your state" we now add "how many races did your state engage in" and "how many elected Greens are there in your state".

The committee charged with putting all the information together so they can submit a list of each state and how many delegates they are entitled to, met for the first time formally last night. Cat Woods, who is not the co-chair, conducted the meeting. There were quite a few in attendance, representatives from five different states, enough to constitute a formal committee. I was an observer. The committee, which included some of the party's most active and vocal leaders, worked very smoothly, and after about an hour and fifteen minutes, all the assignments had been assigned and the work was underway.

There is not a bunch more to report. The committee decided (wisely in my opinion) to leave the archives of the committee's work open for review by anyone so inclined. Don't push as you try to get to those records! ~Laugh~ Oh well, maybe a few folks will take a look. I consider it a real accomplishment to get this committee going, and I comment the people who are making it happen. If you would be willing to participate in this committee, drop me a note and I will gladly do what I can to hook you into the committee's work. It's dull, but critical.

Read more!

Proposal 277, which would change the formula used to distribute money donated to the party between the state and national party, seems poised for success as the end of voting closes in. As of this moment, enough states have voted to make quorum and the vote is 50 YES, 10 NO, 3 ABSTAIN.

I now know that the abstentions don't count when it comes time to do the percentages. Currently, the proposal is passing with 80% of the yes and no votes.

Read more!

In an article by the Associated Press, the Montana Green Party, only recently brought officially into the GP fold, plans to compete for votes in upcoming elections. The decision to jump into these contests was made this past weekend at their state convention. Go MT Greens!

Read more!

In an article at CA Greening, Wes discusses Earth Day, the loss of our rightful place in American consciousness as the environmental party to Democrats, and the need to re-focus the Green Party on environmental issues.

Read more!

In an article by Tad Walch of Deseret Morning News Ralph Nader is reported to be ready to deliver a "counter-commencement" speech to graduates of Brigham Young University. With Cheney slated to deliver the commencement, Nader was approached by a group of students who wanted to hear an alternative vision.

Read more!

Read more!

Read more!

In an article at Times Record-Herald, Jeremiah Horrigan writes that Ralph Nader is comming to the Village of New Paltz to campaign for Jason West as he runs for re-election as Mayor.

Horrigan writes that this is the first time a national figure has come to town to campaign for a mayoral candidate.

Read more!

From the National Party mailing listserv:

At our statewide meeting in Columbia on April 14, 2007, the Progressive Party of Missouri officially changed its name to Green Party of Missouri. We would appreciate it if you would change the name of our party on any lists that you use. Thank you.

Dee Berry, Co-chair

Read more!

Open Minds and Open Hearts found this video, and it is terrific! Imagine if your local Greens could do something like this, put it onto a DVD, and spread it around town. I can't help but think we would win a lot of votes! Check it out.

Read more!

In only six days, Proposal 277 will either have passed or failed.

The proposal, which deals with the ever so exciting topic of State Sharing Programs changes the way the National Party and state parties split the proceeds between the National Party and the various states.

As it stands now, anyone who gives to the National Party is offered the opportunity to split their donation with their state. Whenever someone does this, 1/2 of the donation goes to the state, even if the state was not involved in soliciting the donation.

Here's a "Real life" example. Say the National Party sends a mailing to retired teachers in South Carolina, focused on what Greens across the nation are doing on education and retirement issues. A retired teacher who taught as a passion, not for the income, gets the mailing and sends in a check for $10,000. Not knowing that the state even has a state chapter, she clicks the "Share with my state" box.

Now, if that check came from York County, where I live, I would ask the state party for a portion of that money, but they are under no obligation to do so.

But, what if the check came from someone in a state or community where we are not even organized yet?

So, having done nothing, my state would have been sent a check for $5000 by the national party. Under the new rules, my state would get 40% instead of 50%, or $4000 instead of $5000. Not bad for not even lifting a finger.

This is a fair proposal, and deserves a vote, and now. This should not fail because it was not "sexy" enough an issue to get Green National Committee members worked up enough to actually vote.

To see if your delegates have voted yet, check this page.

If you are a delegate, and haven't voted yet, you can vote by clicking this link.

To read the full text of the proposal, click the first link, or look behind the "Read more!" link...


Background
State sharing programs (SSPs) support both state Green Parties and GPUS and, as such, are a basic and important part of fundraising programs at both state and national levels. In order that the number and variety of SSPs continue to expand, it is vital that both state Green Parties and GPUS are appropriately compensated for fundraising efforts within these programs.

Our current SSPs do not differentiate between contributions that come in through state efforts and that come in through national efforts. In order to encourage state participation in fundraising, and to make it financially worthwhile for state parties, the Fundraising Committee is introducing a series of state driven SSPs.

Along with an increasing menu of state driven SSPs, we are reconfiguring the way state sharing is calculated. For contributions deriving from state driven programs, the state's share will be 60%, instead of the current 50%. For contributions deriving from national efforts, the state share will be 40%.

The key to the success of this system will be identifying whether a donation came in through state or national efforts. Our current donation tracking system assigns a solicitation code for each contribution. Identifying a contribution as state driven or nationally driven will utilize this current system for tracking solicitation codes. The tracking codes become part of the database records used by our accountant in calculating state sharing.

A description of programs follows, along with details on how contributions from each program will be tracked.

STATE DRIVEN PROGRAMS

State Sustainer Program:

The national office will provide for states a customized donate page and printable template for sustainer donations of $10 month or more per month ($120/year). The state party will be in charge of promoting the program on-line, at meetings, mailings, events. The national office will handle
credit card or check processing, data entry, thank you letter, green pages subscription, and lapel pin. A unique tracking code will be assigned for both the web donation and the printable template indicating that it is a state driven program.

State Driven One Time Contributions:

Details same as state sustainer program, except that the donor signs up for a one time donation, again with a minimum of $10. As above, a unique tracking code will be assigned for state drive one-time contributions.

Green Party Card:

The national office provides for states a customized Green Party card page and printable template for Green Party signups ($36 or more). The state party will be in charge of promoting the program on-line, at meetings, mailings, events. The national office will handle credit card or check
processing, data entry , thank you letter and GPC packet. As above, a unique tracking code will be assigned for state driven Green Party Card on-line transactions. If a state party chooses to use the printed applications available at the office, they will need to write the code SD
(state driven) on the bottom of the card and make sure the state sharing option is checked.

GPUS DRIVEN PROGRAMS

Nationally driven programs will be handled as they are now. State sharing will be an option on all direct mail, web, sustainer and GPC solicitations. The only change will be that the GPUS driven Green Party Card solicitations will now make state sharing optional rather than automatic.


PROPOSAL

Beginning 1 April 2007, the first day of the 2nd quarter, State Sharing Programs (SSPs) are defined as state driven and national driven.

State driven SSPs are defined as those in which contributions come in through state efforts. For contributions deriving from state driven programs, the state's share will be 60% of gross.

National driven SSPs are defined as those in which contributions come in through national efforts. For contributions deriving from national driven programs, the state's share will be 40% of gross.

For all SSPs, the tracking system will continue to assign the solicitation code of the program to each contribution so that each contribution is identified as being part or a state driven or national driven SSP. The tracking codes become part of the database records and are used by our
accountant in calculating state sharing.

The SSPs described in detail in the BACKGROUND above are examples of current and currently planned programs and are not meant as an exhaustive list of the possibilities for the SSP system.

Contacts: Jody Grage jody at gp.org
Liz Arnone larnone47 at yahoo.com

Read more!

At their Spring Gathering and Membership Meeting on Saturday, the Wisconsin Greens endorsed state legislation which would establish a single payer health care system in that state.

Read more!

As I looked through my template I saw a stray letter in the code, which I am hoping was the cause of the boo boo. Anyway, if you've tried to write me before and it didn't work, try again, or just use the address, GreggJocoy29715@yahoo.com

Read more!

This is from his last (only?) visit on the Daily Show. This man was a green, even if he didn't know it.



Oh yeah, I stole this video from GreenCutip over at Open Minds and Open Hearts

Read more!

The Alligator is one of my choices for Green Party logo, and the illustration above is in the public domain, so it's totally ours if we start using it. Of course, there are public domain representations of all sorts of animals.

Any way, twice today someone tried to write me by clicking on the "write me" button and I never got an email.

Here's my address:

GreggJocoy29715@yahoo.com

Just copy and paste that, or if you don't know what that means, write it down on a piece of paper just like that and send an email to that address by typing it into the address space on your email system.

Sorry. Please try again. I'd really like to hear from you.

Read more!

If you qualify, you can have your expenses partially covered by the party. The Diversity Committee has put together a form to fill out and send to them. If you are interested, all you need do is hit the "Read more!" link below...


2007 Diversity Committee Waiver Application

This is an application for a waiver/scholarship to attend the Green Party of The United States Annual National Meeting in Reading, Pennsylvania. The Diversity Committee has been allocated up to 15 waivers for registration and meals to assist individuals who are low income and who represent communities that are traditionally disenfranchised.

The Scholarship process and applications are confidential, and information about each applicant will be shared only for the purposes of assigning scholarships, and only with the Scholarship Sub-Committee and people designated by the Steering Committee to allocate funds.

Applications should be e-mailed to: divcomscholarship@yahoogroups.com. Once you have sent the application, if you do not receive a response within 2 days, please resend or contact a member of the Scholarship Sub-Committee.

Applications are due on May 13th, 2007. The Diversity Committee Scholarship Sub-Committee will notify applicants no later than May 28th, 2007.

Diversity Committee Scholarship Application Form

Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip:

State Party:

Caucus Membership (if any):

GPUS Committees (if any):

What community/ies do you represent that make you eligible for the grant?:

Please list your green activism or Green Party work. You may include positions within the Green Party, including caucuses, committees, your state, or the GP-US National Committee:




How would attending this Conference impact the work you do in the local and/or
larger arenas? Please be specific:





Have you applied for a scholarship for the Reading, PA meeting through any other Green Party caucus or through your state Green Party? (Applicants are encouraged to apply to their state Green Party): ( ) yes ( ) no

Have you previously attended a Green Party national meeting? ( ) yes ( )no

Have you previously applied for a GP-US Diversity Committee Scholarship? . ( ) yes ( ) no

Have you previously received a GP-US Diversity Committee Scholarship?
(Priority will be given to people who have not received this scholarship
in the past.) ( ) yes ( ) no

The Scholarship Committee will prioritize scholarships related to people's
financial need. The only information that will be considered is the information . you volunteer below:

Please describe any special financial concerns/needs you have which might make it difficult for you to afford the expenses of attending the GP-US National Meeting:




Please check off any of the following boxes which apply to you and which you feel comfortable stating to the committee:

___ Low-income
___ Income interrupted or low due to a disability
___ Temporarily unemployed
___ Current financial hardships such as healthcare bills; family crisis; extraordinary bills or debts."


Are you requesting a waiver for:
Registration: ( ) Meals: ( ) Both: ( )

If requesting lunch waivers, please fill out:

Select what days you will be attending
(chose all that apply):
Friday ( ) Saturday ( ) Sunday ( )

Diet (choose only one):
Omnivore ( ) Vegetarian ( ) Vegan ( )

Special Dietary Needs (if any):


End of application form.

Scholarship Protocols

Intention: It is the intention of this document to set protocols for the awarding of scholarships to the National Conference to inform both scholarship applicants, scholarship evaluators and the Green Party as a whole of our intention and process. These protocols are established,keeping core Green values in mind, as well as the principles of fairness and democracy.

Statement of Purpose: As the Scholarship Sub-Committee of the Diversity Committee, it is our responsibility to clarify and evaluate the awarding of scholarships with the intention of broadening the diversity of our party, increasing involvement and helping to develop leadership in our local, regional and national arenas.

Protocols: The following categories are areas that will be evaluated by the Scholarship Committee:

Need - The need of applicants for a scholarship will comprise 40% of the evaluative process. It is our expectation that people who have the means to travel will do so on their own.

Diversity - The diversity of applicants will comprise 40% of the > evaluative process. Our major focus as a diversity committee is to bring more communities and representation into the process. We address diversity in the broadest spectrum possible.

We are talking about different ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, gender identities, people with disabilities, Immigrants, HIV positive people and people who struggle with poverty, to name just a few categories.

Involvement - The involvement of applicants will comprise 20% of the evaluative process. We are talking about people who are active in their community on some level. It may mean involvement with GPUS, but we want to look at people who want to deepen their commitment and work with us.

A priority will be given to applicants who have not been awarded a scholarship in the past.

We hope these protocols are received in the spirit of cooperation and fairness. We are a grass roots movement and this process gives every applicant an equal opportunity to this opportunity. May this effort help grow our movement.

GPUS Diversity Committee Scholarship Sub-Committee

Send applications to: divcomscholarship@yahoogroups.com.
(divcomscholarships at yahoogroups.com)
You may also use that same e-mail to contact the committee:
divcomscholarship@yahoogroups.com

Note: For more information about the Annual National Meeting in Reading, PA, or for regular registration to the meeting, please go to: www.gpanc.org.

Read more!

For many states, sending a full contingent to the Annual National Meeting is cost-prohibitive. Personally, I'd like us to find a city with a helpful Convention Bureau, low air fares, union hotels and a decent environment and hold all our national meetings there. Loads of groups do this. My only caveat would be, not in Nevada please. We compulsive gamblers can't even think of going there. Hell, and city with big time gambling would be bad for me.

Anyway, the GNC passed Proposal 158, which authorizes states to use proxys. Here, thanks to Marc Sanson of IL, is the language:

The following language was inserted into Article II, section 2 of the bylaws:“A delegate to the National Committee may cast an additional vote at a National Conference in place of an absent delegate, as long as the total number of votes cast for that state does not exceed its total allowed votes on the National Committee, or twice the number of voting delegates in attendance."

Now, here's the thing. There is discussion of charging states to use these proxy votes as an effort to fund the party's diversity goals. That is, if SC has three delegates, we can send one person and get two votes, but must pay for the second vote, send two delegates, with one having an extra vote, and having to pay for the extra vote and get three votes, or send three, pay more in convention fees and still get only three votes.

But if a state sends proxys, and pays for them, that leaves cash to send to states with delegates who can't self-finance. This I think is a great idea. I also think it's a great idea to exempt those few states, like FL, who have returned money to the national party recently to help in the cash crunch.

Of course, votes is certainly not the only thing a state gets by attending the national meeting. Opportunities to meet and network with folks from other states may well be more important to your state than a position taken on a resolution of one sort or another. I know, for example, if South Carolina sent three well organized people splitting responsibilities for meeting every state co-chair, swapping cards and giving them a list of things we need to know, like how to raise funds or recruit party membership, we would have a better shot at a good outcome over the next year than if we send three who go, listen, debate, make points and "win" on this or that platform issue.

It's about what is important, and frankly, no one really gives a damn what the USGP thinks should be done about abortion in Mexico, crime in Beijing or the crisis in Sudan. That doesn't mean we don't have proper responses to those issues, but that we must focus on what we can do.

And that is typically local with global impacts. It's a long drive. It's a hard road. But all the other roads seem to be leading to planetary destruction.

Read more!

In my real life, I sell fasteners to the automotive after-market. Like many folks, I get a trade publication or two. One is Automotive Body Repair News. In an article published in the April 1st edition, Troy Simpson writes about the impact of the minimum wage hike on their bottom line. Here's the fundamental point of this trade publication (and they are often mouth pieces for their advertisers),

According to SurePayroll, an online payroll service provider for small businesses, 91 percent of small business owners are not affected by minimum wage laws because they pay their employees more than the minimum wage, a sentiment shared by many in the collision repair industry.

Read more!

The people who "guard" the Pantex plant where nuclear weapons are built are on strike. Over at Truthout.org, they publish an article by Dale Russakoff of the Washington Post which says that 500 guards are involved.

Read more!

This one is from the Daily Princetonian.

Read more!

It's coivered by the Poughkeepsie Journal and frankly, Jason West comes out pretty darn good to me. The Democrat sounds like a rather typical Business Democrat, not that I am opposed to Business, I own one. I didn't like reading that Jason wouldn't talk much about a retirement community being proposed because of current litigation, but I supposed that's the way it is. The project sounds good. As an almost 50 year old, I can assure you that I am sensitive to the need for top quality senior care.

I am also acutely aware that my generation is bankrupting the next. I am also aware that many baby-boomers are responsible for the destruction we have brought to the environment. It looks like this project got serious benefit from having Greens on the Village Council.

Read more!

I am not a Libertarian, although I am a libertarian. I am a Green libertarian, which basically means, to me, that I believe that individual rights must be protected from unnecessary (and it almost always is) and oppressive government or corporate control. Individual people should be free to do with and to themselves as they see fit. Your government, nor your employer, should be allowed to regulate your personal behavior so long as it does not directly adversely impact others. But I fall out of company with Libertarians in two areas by and large. First, corporations and other legal myths don't have rights. We can, legally, take every dime from every corporate bank account and do with it as we wish. It would do immeasurable harm to the people to do this, but it should be considered legal. The only reason corporations exist is because we the people allow them to exist. Secondly, the Green Party is based on the Ten Key Values, and as such has a moral and ethical foundation. The Libertarian Party has, as far as I know, no similar set of foundational principles.

Even so, Dr. Carl Milstead writes at the Free Market News Service that the Libertarian Party faces daunting tasks. Insurmountable tasks. Un-doable tasks. And yet, the call and opportunity can't be ignored.

I feel exactly the same way about the Green Party. We can't succeed. The money is stacked up against us. The media ignores or ridicules us. We suffer from internal argument and childish behavior by adults who should know better. We are still too white, too educated, too upper-middle-class, too...too US.

But there has never been a better opportunity to change the world, and our nation. Green Parties across the planet are working, hundreds of thousands of us, every day for Non-Violence, Grassroots Democracy, Ecological Wisdom and Social Justice. Our party's policies and platform are solid enough, good enough, that with ALL our dis-function, we have been able to draw to our side people like Winnona LaDuke, Ralph Nader, Aaron Dixon, Medea Benjamin, Peter Coyote, Patti Smith, Peter Camejo, Matt Gonzalez, Matt Ahern, Jason West and Efia Nwangaza. Don't recognize a name there? Google them! These are only a FEW of the folks who believe in us and our principles that they have invested time, energy and money into our efforts.

So...IF we get our act together, allow each other to run our own show, forget about internal "politics" and allow others to do as they please, and set up a simple, streamlined national structure that does NOT try to do too much, and WATCH OUT. There is no limit to what we can do, especially on the local level.

Go GREENS! We have a world to save, and our lifetimes to save it.

Read more!

The computer just clicked over and shut down the vote, leaving the numbers as in the below post, along with the word ADOPTED.

Therefore, either the abstentions are not counted in the percentages, or the results were rounded up. Either way, apparently, according to some on the National Committee mailing list, someone who was not qualified to vote, an observer, did vote NO, and a delegate who could not get the onlive voting system to work for him recorded his YES vote by sending it to the national committee mailing list, so...

I think it's safe to say that the Green Party has adopted a new Delegate Allocation system, and the Green National Committee will be expanding in size.

While I am doubtful of all things requiring new clothes, perhaps we actually will get a better Green Party National Committee out of this.

Time will tell.

Read more!

With only the west still pre-midnight, voting has almost assuredly coming to an end.

One delegate changed a vote from YES to ABSTAIN, but the delegate might as well voted NO. By remaining in the pool of votes cast, they increase the number of YES votes to stay above a super-majority.

At this moment, the vote is:
YES - 73
NO - 35
ABSTAIN - 3

73+35+3 = 111
73/111 = .657...does that round up?

Or, is the math supposed to be 73/108 (111-3 ABSTAIN=108)
73/108=.675

Again, the threshold is .66, so....

I'm not sure how many delegates there are left who have *not* voted yet, so I don't know that will happen tonight, but I'm going to bed.

Read more!

Writing under the name "Zola", Mato has written 15 articles, made 22 comments at other people's blogs, set up two diaries.

I also write at OpEdNews.org, but I want all my readers to know that Mato is doing this. We need LOTS more Greens with cameras out there. Think about it. If a Green had shot the MaCacCa comment on video, the words "Green Party" would have been uttered dozens if not thousands of times on TV over the next two days. Finding ways to get our message to the people seems like the biggest challenge. Mato has found a way to reach the readers of OpEdNews.org. I write there, at American Chronicle, Green Commons, Chlorophyll, but the most effective in terms of reaching and getting locally involved people was the "Community" blog associated with the Herald.

In a real community blog, at worst a portion, prime real estate in the middle of the screen, gets committed to the owner of the site. Non owners have access to some of the site's features, but can't be given access to do anything internal. It's as if we are allowed to place content on the owner's desk and he uses his editor's eye to decide where to put what.

Their stuff, the stuff they want to sell, gets loads of attention, and access to the innerds to tweak stuff, like remove a post, find an email address so yoiu can be contacted if there are concerns, and finally to promote one story by laying out the site in one or another way.

We "content providers" or "subscribers" are allowed to initiate a thread on the sideline, not in the middle. When you click on my link to make a comment about it, the entire page is filled with your comment. But if someone does not click on the link, they will never know the conversation.

What a really free service would allow is the ability to register a name and password not linked to an email address. Then, every regular commentator would have a page they can "decorate" like in "Second Life"...like, if you want an Escher print, and I do, I would have to write at least two hundred posts on my blog. Then, I can "hang" the print in my "Virtual Green House" with rocking solar power, recycling and reusing and composting everything.

That, ultimately, is our children's grand children's future, if not earlier. Recycling everything because raw materials drawn from the earth have polluted the air so severely that people die daily during the spring, summer and fall. A future where prices are unstable, work is often make-shift work, and the best off hire guards to keep the masses behind gates and guns.A future of eating food we would today throw away because it was bruised, or just a bit off in smell. We will eat them. We will eat what we grow, because the cost in cash and in pollution to run mega-farms will have ended. Seeds would be a sought after commodity, as that is where the diversity will come from.

Anyway...Mato Ska! Right. Sheesh.

OK, here are some of the articles he has published at OpEdNews.org:

A Successful Nation-Building Strategy Under Construction in Kurdistan
There are many peoples in the region of South West Asia that have been relegated to the status of national minorities due to the partitioning of the region after the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire after its defeat in World War One. But, no people have been so systematically abused by the nations in which they inhabited as the Kurds.

The Transition to Renewable Energy

For all the hoopla about Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and given Senator Gore's own background in the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government, there is little in the way of concrete policy proposals that have been introduced as a cornerstone of a new energy policy.

The Missing Conversation and the Road Forward- a Green Perspective

There remains a future to define that is just now emerging and becoming evident. But, if we go back and try to resurrect old models, we will surely miss our opportunity to have influence. The road is forward.

The Need for Change in Iran Versus War

We stand unequivocally united in moving forward together and seeking a better future for our children, so that all might live in peace and provide mutual support for all the citizens of the world.

DRAFT PEACE PLAN FOR SOUTH WEST ASIA

The foreign policy of the US Government ought to be focused on facilitating peacemaking and ending its military actions against the nations and peoples of the region.

The Kirkuk Referendum

Is there any more just solution for a people who have endured so much suffering at the hands of both the Sunni and Shi'a? Is there a people who have endured a more oppressive occupation by the Syrians, the Turks, the Persians and the Arabs for so long?

Public Education: Reform -- or Revolution?

Have American public schools passed the point of no return?

The Third Party Project

Third parties arise because the two-party system isn't up to the task of providing representation for the people.

Supporting Palestine, Opposing Jihadists

The definition of Islamists as anti-imperialist lies at the root of the continued efforts to promote their political organizations as revolutionary or progressive or better then others. We cannot continue to obscure the analyses regarding the strategies of people in the region for liberation.

THE ROAD IS FORWARD – WE LEARN AS WE GROW

We travel the road less traveled to gain the victories that are more difficult to accomplish. The road to victory is forward. The Democrats have no leadership, the Republicans have only mis-leadership. It's past time to build our own ship.

There is No Peace in Escalation

As Americans whose government is currently engaged in a ruthless and reckless exercise in Iraq, it is time for us to begin the process of formulating a package of policies that lead in the direction of peace.

Paging Oliver Cromwell

This is a legal and Constitutional crisis that must be fought first and foremost in that arena. Through the courts and in the COngress will be the appropriate arenas for action. That doesn't mean back off. That means move forward with audacity. Tourjour l'audace!

Are Third Parties the Answer?

"Power concedes nothing without a struggle." -- Frederick Douglass.

Water Planning in the South West

In the Middle Rio Grande region of New Mexico water planning is taking on a significant character that is open and inclusive. Proposals dealing with issues ranging from water quality to conjunctive management of surface and ground waters, and from establishing funding sources for water programs to increasing water supply and decreasing water demand have all been incorporated into the recommendations.

Saladin Lives!

What is happening in the Middle East is not merely sectarian strife, but an expression of the conflict between different national forces.

Read more!

In an article by the The Associated Press, Rebekah Kennedy, 28, said that she is running for Mark Pryor's Senate seat.

I think that one must be 30 by election day to run, or is it younger than that?

Read more!

As of this writing, with about 5 1/2 hours to go before the end of voting, the vote on 272 is exceptionally tight.

Current vote is:
69 YES
31 NO
2 Abstain

Doing the math: 69+31+2=102
69/102=68%

Threshold is 66%

If three more people vote NO and no one else votes YES or ABSTAIN, the proposal will fail.

Read more!

From a message to the Green National Committee from Holly Hart, National Party Secretary:

The message was that Qwest and Cingular have stopped blocking their customers' access to freeconference.com, thanks to the number of complaints they received from their customaers. Sprint is still blocking, Freeconference is encouraging continuing to push Sprint to change.

Holly Hart
Secretary, GPUS

OMG! A freaking phone company can keep it's customers from using freeconferencecall.com?? WTF?? This is insane! Most all activist communities I know of use freeconferencecall.com because it's...er...FREE!

Good lord...what else do they have the right to do to us? Can Verizon block access to websites on their phones?

Read more!

Karen Jennings of MD posted this to the national list. What a GREAT idea!

Here in Maryland, there are a good number of people purchasing Green Cards who are not willing to register Green. In fact, I often recommend Green Cards to people who say "I'd love to support the Greens but...." and then give some reason for supporting
Democrats that I can't talk them out of (usually having to do with voting in a primary). Of course, since we can register Green in Maryland, that would be our measure of membership for this state. But it makes me wonder how appropriate a paying membership would be for identifying the "real" Green Party members in other states.
-Karen Jennings
Maryland Delegate

Read more!

Rebecca White, Of NYC, wrote the Green National Committee to ask "Is there a way that online donations could be automatically put in two accounts proportionally based on which page they came from and then only the check and cash donations would have to be physically processed by our folks?"

I don't know the answer, but with all the hub-ub about Proposal 272, not that the hub-ub was undeserved, I missed Proposal 277 entirely. The proposal, titled "PROPOSAL TO REDEFINE AND EXPAND STATE SHARING PROGRAMS", proposes to formalize understandings about how money raised is shared by and between the state and national parties. The full text is linked above, or behind the "Read more!" link below.

Here's the thing: Greens, but most especially Green donors, need to have full confidence that the party is using funds to their greatest effect. Some folks believe that the party offices are a liability, but I have seen photos. It is no fancy digs. Some have said that national staff were given raises when the cash was in reserve. These two deserve $200,000 a year a piece, but it's not there, and I know they would likely take that cash and turn around and hire assistants to make them even more effective.

But super-specific rules can hog tie you, and you wind up risking violating your own rules because it's unavoidable. Say you know the power will be turned off if the bill is not paid, but there is a credit card deposit coming with more than enough to cover the check you write today...what do you do?

Of course, avoid getting behind the eight ball, but that's like saying that exercise and eating healthy will be good for you. We all know it's true, but sometimes...


Background

State sharing programs (SSPs) support both state Green Parties and GPUS and, as such, are a basic and important part of fundraising programs at both state and national levels. In order that the number and variety of SSPs continue to expand, it is vital that both state Green Parties and GPUS are appropriately compensated for fundraising efforts within these programs.

Our current SSPs do not differentiate between contributions that come in through state efforts and that come in through national efforts. In order to encourage state participation in fundraising, and to make it financially worthwhile for state parties, the Fundraising Committee is introducing a series of state driven SSPs.

Along with an increasing menu of state driven SSPs, we are reconfiguring the way state sharing is calculated. For contributions deriving from state driven programs, the state's share will be 60%, instead of the current 50%. For contributions deriving from national efforts, the state share will be 40%.

The key to the success of this system will be identifying whether a donation came in through state or national efforts. Our current donation tracking system assigns a solicitation code for each contribution. Identifying a contribution as state driven or nationally driven will utilize this current system for tracking solicitation codes. The tracking codes become part of the database records used by our accountant in calculating state sharing.

A description of programs follows, along with details on how contributions from each program will be tracked.

STATE DRIVEN PROGRAMS

State Sustainer Program:

The national office will provide for states a customized donate page and printable template for sustainer donations of $10 month or more per month ($120/year). The state party will be in charge of promoting the program on-line, at meetings, mailings, events. The national office will handle credit card or check processing, data entry, thank you letter, green pages subscription, and lapel pin. A unique tracking code will be assigned for both the web donation and the printable template indicating that it is a state driven program.

State Driven One Time Contributions:

Details same as state sustainer program, except that the donor signs up for a one time donation, again with a minimum of $10. As above, a unique tracking code will be assigned for state drive one-time contributions.

Green Party Card:

The national office provides for states a customized Green Party card page and printable template for Green Party signups ($36 or more). The state party will be in charge of promoting the program on-line, at meetings, mailings, events. The national office will handle credit card or check processing, data entry , thank you letter and GPC packet. As above, a unique tracking code will be assigned for state driven Green Party Card on-line transactions. If a state party chooses to use the printed
applications available at the office, they will need to write the code SD (state driven) on the bottom of the card and make sure the state sharing option is checked.

GPUS DRIVEN PROGRAMS

Nationally driven programs will be handled as they are now. State sharing will be an option on all direct mail, web, sustainer and GPC solicitations. The only change will be that the GPUS driven Green Party Card solicitations will now make state sharing optional rather than automatic.

Proposal
PROPOSAL

Beginning 1 April 2007, the first day of the 2nd quarter, State Sharing Programs (SSPs) are defined as state driven and national driven.

State driven SSPs are defined as those in which contributions come in through state efforts. For contributions deriving from state driven programs, the state's share will be 60% of gross.

National driven SSPs are defined as those in which contributions come in through national efforts. For contributions deriving from national driven programs, the state's share will be 40% of gross.

For all SSPs, the tracking system will continue to assign the solicitation code of the program to each contribution so that each contribution is identified as being part or a state driven or national driven SSP. The tracking codes become part of the database records and are used by our accountant in calculating state sharing.

The SSPs described in detail in the BACKGROUND above are examples of current and currently planned programs and are not meant as an exhaustive list of the possibilities for the SSP system.

Contacts: Jody Grage jody at gp.org
Liz Arnone larnone47 at yahoo.com

Read more!

on Proposals Proposal 274, (68 YES, 7 ABSTAIN)
Proposal 272 (65 YES, 22 NO, 3 ABSTAIN)
and Proposal 276 (66 YES, 6 NO, 2 ABSTAIN)

272 is the closest to failure, but the current vote is 72% of votes cast YES, with a threshold of 66%.

With 77% of states voting, Proposal 272 has met the 66% quorum requirement.

Likewise, Proposals 276 and 274 have met their quorum.

Read more!

This is the full text of a message sent to the Green National Committee by the Forum Managers. The Forum Managers are James deBoer, Jane Hunter and Deanna Taylor.

Dear NC:

The Forum Managers would like to remind everyone that we are all colleagues working towards common goals. When posting comments and remarks on certain topics and issues, please be aware of how your posts are worded. It is suggested that delegates refrain from using "value-laden" language - that is , language that could be perceived as questioning ones ethical and moral values.

For example, "Delegate xyz has made a recommendation that is antithetical to all green values" insinuates that the person who made the recommendation does not live green values. Contrast that with "The recommendation that Delegate xyz made needs more clarity" or "I'm confused on how this recommendaton correlates to green values," which directly addresses the recommendation and not the person.

Please also be aware of the amount of posts you submit per day, being sure to allow other delegates the chance to contribute to the online discussions.

Thank you!

GPUS Forum Managers

I'm not saying that I agree 100%. Some things ~are~ antithetical to green values, and pointing out that the *proposal* is antithetical to green values is not the same as saying "You're not a green." But there are certainly too many times when I have read things like "Anyone who can't see that is no Green".

To be the anti-party, we must behave like one. Focus on the Ten Key Values, the sorts of issues and themes that attracted Nader to us and visa-versa, and find ways to reach out to non-voters, or more importantly, the recent non-voter. Folks who voted in the Republican primary in 2000 and never again. That is a *McCain when he was a reformer* voter. Find voters who voted for Perot, and not again since. Find the left-behind, those who are sick and tired of politics-as-usual, and that is a base we can build from.

And we must find ways to reach the working class. Bingo halls are often populated by working class folks. How about wearing a shirt that says "Stop the War" and a local web address on it? Don't you think that might bring in some working class folks? How about doing the same at minor league ball games where tickets are $10 on the middle level? How about wearing it to Wal-Mart, a flea market, while yard selling, while eating at Waffle House?

Likewise, what if it said "Termina la Guerra" (not sure on the spelling) and a webaddress, with text in Spanish? Then, visit the shopping centers, apartment complexes, mobile home parks and stores where Spanish speaking folks live or shop and reach out with brochures or something else if you don't speak Spanish. Just hand someone the brochure and say "Gracias. No hablo Espanol." and they will likely take it and say "Gracias" back.

The point is, this is our Green Party, and it will become what we want it to be based on what we do on the ground. Too much of what goes on nationally happens online, and all too frequently by people like me, who should better be using their time doing actual community work.

Sometimes I wonder if states and locals take their angriest, most self-centered and uncooperative people and put them on national committees to keep them from fucking things up on the local or state scene.

Read more!

You folks know that I don't do popular culture, but this absolutely ROCKS! Rapping Wordsworth version of the poem I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud...performed by MC Nuts.

You have GOT to watch this thing. I almost busted a gut. I love making culture available to all, but the squirrel is off the hook!

Read more!

Proposal 272 (Sets new rules for deciding how many delegates each state gets via a formula instead of by population and number of locals) has generated a lot of silly and some serious discussion on the GNC mailing lists. This is a repeat of how it was in 2004 if my memory serves. The Cobb folks had led the Accreditation Committee, the Delegate Apportionment Committee and other committees, but butted heads with some on the GNC. Eventually, everyone but them ran out of steam, and the decision was made.


I still think the GNC should hold a vote on what they think is the optimal number of delegates, say 100, say 50, say 200...whatever.

Then allow each state to "claim" a number of delegates, and provide the names of people willing to serve. If FL has seven experienced people who can help move the Green Party forward, and they think they deserve and can defend that number, let them present the proposal. Likewise from every other state.

Tally up all the delegates each state **wants** and can fill with quality folks (that leaves me out), and if the number is greater than the set number of delegates, ask the states to consider and try to re-figure until we reach consensus. May take several months, and should always be open to flux as people change positions.

I'd personally like to see an end to long-term delegates with term limits. Likewise, I'd like to end caucus representation.

Read more!

Claudia Elquist of AZ wrote a long, and reasoned statement on the state of political reality in her state and how the impact of Proposal 272 would be negative. Unlike others, it's not "It's a California power grab", or "This is designed to hurt small states" or "The laws are racist, so we are racist for going along."

Instead, Elquist basically says "If your state has party registration, and you get to count all those people as Greens, even if they never attend one meeting, hold one sign, run for office, give to a campaign, or even vote, you count, but in a state where registration is not permitted by party, we can only count Greens we see face-to-face. I think that is a reasonable concern. I also agree that Proposal 272 is passing, in part, because the GNC wants to end the debate and move on.

The entire text of her message, worth reading, is behind the "Read more!" link below.


There are two key reasons why this proposed change in the NC is a bad idea, at this time.

One is that Greens are not equivalent across state lines, where some state Green Parties [like Arizona] are letting their state government define Greenness, at a very low level, and other state governments are, de facto, making Greenness something far fewer voters are going to select, because of the hurdles, bribes, and corruptions within the system.

Someone who scribbles in "Green" on a state supplied form, and then disappears [as in my state] simply is not the equivalent of someone who actually has to come into physical contact with another Green, on a regular basis, and do something to build the Party [as in another state.]

Until we have consensus, on a basis for membership that really is equivalent, what on earth do we mean when we say we are "representing" those "members". But there is a second issue as well. In some ways this discussion is also a continuation of the unresolved discussion about what the GP-US is-- a political party or a social movement.

If GP-US is a movement, then delegates "represent" individual "members," and vote their beliefs, about various issues. Just like joining the NAACP or NOW. Pay your dues, and expect that delegates you send to conferences will democratically vote on issue resolutions, so the whole world knows where you stand. Members may add action, like pickets or rallies or letter writing, to broadcast further where the group stands.

That's a social movement kind of organization, a righteous kind of membership club, and representing its members is what it is all about.

But voting in a club, no matter how big or righteous the club, is not democracy. Democracy is voting in the government, and those clubs are standing on the outside, shouting in the windows, but unable to enter at the doors.

Which is quite different from a political party. A political party is about getting ballot lines and running candidates, so you can walk in the door and take a seat. When a political party stops doing ballot lines and candidates, and just makes pronouncements, it succumbs to irrelevancy. The resolutions might be on important issues and might be reflective of the beliefs of every one of its members [however it defines membership]. But nobody cares. Because as a party, we have set the bar
higher than shouting in the window. We have said that, election by election, we will take back the government from the robber barons, the cronies, the torturers, et al. And, having set that standard, for us to act like a mere social movement organization-- writing letters, holding signs and passing resolutions on the issues of the day-- is to show that we are frauds and liars.

Yeah, yeah-- we still do those other things [I do anyway-- twice a week I am out there with my sign]. But that's secondary. If we hold our Green Party banner at every rally and protest out there, and don't have ballot status, we are a public joke.

But, because I am not joking, I'm out there gathering signatures. Uphill, all the way. But what is harder than forcing myself to pick up the clipboard, is convincing other Greens, in my state, that it is worth it. For some reason, they don't want to do this, every day, for the rest of their lives! They want to know that if we sacrifice this one year, of our too-short lives, to get the signatures, that we won't have to do it again the next year, and the next.

And [tell the truth and shame the devil] we all know, in this state, that likelihood is that the GP-US is gonna fail us, in that regard. There is no one on the horizon who is gonna spare us that bleak signature gathering future by getting 5% of the presidential team vote. Not saying this to blame anyone-- but it is the reality of our state, just as it is the reality of a lot of states.

So, why do we bother? Well, this may surprise you, but we do it for the rest of you. We do it because we are part of the GP-US, and we want the Party to succeed, even if that manifests itself in California, and not here. We know that no political party can sustain itself as a state unto itself, even in the largest states. You need for us to be doing this, or you fail.

This part matters-- you cannot get ballot status in 51 states if you don't share the burden of getting ballot status in 51 states. If three or four state parties end up controlling the NC, it might make no difference-- if they suddenly start acting as though we are all in this together, and start sharing that burden. I have little doubt that if I saw us-- all of us-- actually acting like that, I'd be less put off by this social movement organization talk about "representing members" when we can define neither "members" nor "representation."


It feels like we are reallocating cabins on the Titanic, instead of doing the work that needs to be done to keep the ship afloat. Delegate Huckleberry put the challenge out there, that if we vote YES, the new delegates will have a vision that the old ones seem to lack, and volunteers would come forth, money would begin to flow. That challenge has echoed like a tin penny in the indifferent silence.

I'm voting NO. Not as a protest, but as a sign of hope, that we will abandon the false urgency here, take stock, re-read our Statement of Purpose, get a vision commensurate with our Ten Key Values and our task, and do it right when it comes to allocation.

--claudia ellquist, AzGP

Read more!

I love the Green Party. I believe it is our best chance to save human life on planet Earth. Because it is based on the Four Pillars of Non-violence, Ecological Wisdom, Grassroots democracy and Social Justice, the Green Party actually does put principle before personalities.

The Four Pillars are expanded by six to fill out the Ten Key Values of the GPUS. These additional six key values are critical. They are the rest of the foundation of the party. Feminism, Community-Based Economics, Decentralization, Sustainability, Respect for Diversity, and Personal and Global Responsibility are all as important as the first four, bringing us a solid foundation that survives cruel attacks from inside and out.

Not only are we surviving against all the odds, reading these pages clearly shows that the Green Activist is stepping forward to run for office, giving the Green Voter someone to support and vote for. Look today to other nations and you will see that communities that twenty years ago were running one and two Greens are now running Greens for every political seat offered! That can be us! A real alternative.

Now for the problem, eh? Here, taken from a post to the Green National Committee today as voting concludes on Proposal 272, which changes the Delegate Apportionment scheme, is a quote from Hugh Esco of Georgia.

As I see it here, a faction of our Party who would have had us forgo nominating a candidate willing to carry our banner, fight for and defend our ballot lines, has used this as a bully pulpit to distract this Party from its only and essential responsibility:
to provide fifty-one ballot lines for its Presidential candidates, and a means for its members to choose their nominees for that race.

This is essentially the problem. By believing in the sort of "Revolutionary" change that would be required for our Presidential nominee to win without building a real political culture and base, Esco and others leave the process of building a real and effective force for good off for another day. "If we can't get on the ballot, there is nothing we can do to increase our power inside the national party." seems, on the surface, to be a fair argument, and as such, I didn't discuss those sentiments here. But this statement, that everything you and I do to grow the Green Party is entirely in the service of one election every four years is absurd and insulting.

Read his words. "One and only". Goodness gracious, can I have a shot of hyperbole on the rocks for my friend from Georgia?

To me, the reverse is true. The Presidential campaign has only ONE purpose, to help me get local Greens elected. They should help recruit candidates. They should get TV exposure. They should create campaign support committees and turn them into GP chapters. They should use their money with a real focus on getting more strength into the base, with a special focus on states like Georgia and North Carolina where things are so difficult.

If Elaine Brown were to be our nominee, for example, and she spent 40% of her time going from small Georgia town to tiny Georgia hamlet, spreading the news of the Ten Key Values, I would consider that Presidential campaign time well spent. I have lived all across Georgia. I was born and raised in Georgia. I know the sort of poverty that is a shotgun shack without insulation or running water or toilets. I know the sort of bills that can bury a family because the cost of keeping the place warm enough so that your baby is safe is so high.

I also know that, even with Georgia's draconian ballot access laws, one *can* run as a Green in Georgia. First off, every non-partisan race is open to Greens, as is true everywhere. Secondly, at least some partisan offices are available for one to run on as a Green. By petitioning, the Clarke County (Athens) Greens will have a candidate running for some office soon. I did the same in 1982 when I ran for the Georgia State House of Representatives on the Citizens Party ticket by petitioning for it. My wife was pregnant with our first daughter as we campaigned, and Erin was born that December.

But, the real point is, Esco and others believe that the only purpose of the Green Party is to promote One Big Candidate for President who is going to create the Green Party at one fell swoop.

Sorry, that is not sustainable. It is not decentralized. It is not grassroots.

It is not green.

Read more!

They are on the right side of the screen and after everything else has scrolled by, but all the great Green Blogs are there, so enjoy!

Read more!

This proposal would expand the size of the Green National Committee and do several other things. Much of what it does is address problems each person had on earlier attempts, but the 200 person figure never went away.

The Green National Committee is in need of fundamental reform. We don't need 20 people getting most of what gets done to be hindered by the 80 current delegates who never share alternatives or opinions, never propose anything, and don't always vote. Now we propose to increase the group's size to 200, and if they are lucky, they will be able to get 30 people to do the work, and 170 to hang around the other's necks like a mill stone.

Listen, I'm OK with this proposal. Let's give it a run, but we need an internal reform / re-design group not in the party leadership to re-think...what do we want? How can we get independents to vote for us? How will we get non-voters to begin? These are the real issues, and unless and until everyone with a GP job to do has her or his hands full do we need to expand the ranks of those we intend to put into leadership.

Read more!

Over in AR, Rebekah Kennedy wants to run for US Senate.

It's a short piece, and often times Green races don't get much notice, so every little bit helps.

Read more!

With photos to boot! Nice turn-out. Visit Stepitup07.org and read the report there. Turn out looks great, and the photos are awesome! Congrats to everyone who helped pull this off.

Read more!

And of course, the local Greens are all excited, right?

No. Many Greens perceive gasohol to be a long way to get pollution. First, use highly intensive farming techniques, and likely genetic modifications, to give us the biggest possible yields of energy. Land formerly farmed for feed stock will go to alcohol production, and the cost of corn fed meets of all sorts will rise.

And in the end, you're still burning stuff to move a vehicle, and we should be working hard to get beyond that within fifteen years. Human survival is going to require eliminating something akin to 98% reductions in the impact we have on the planet. Sustainability helps do that. A huge home built properly can house eight or ten people, and survive basically unchanged with minor repairs for hundreds of years. Even if the house were huge, the length of time it will be serving to shelter human beings makes it sustainable.

Anyway, the Buffalo News reports on the story here They also quote a local Green:

Attorney Judith Einach, Green Party mayoral candidate in 2005, accused ethanol proponents of spreading inaccurate information about the benefits of the alternative fuel and of skirting the negatives. For one thing, Einach said, plants that use vast amounts of corn to make ethanol could cause dramatic increases in food prices.

Read more!

The only problem is, his state, NY, has entrenched elections officials with entrenched interests, which tend to match the interests of the already-elected. Think about it. How cozy is the relationship between the Board of Elections and the elected officials they regulate? In my county, the County Council hires and fires the elections staff, and funds them and tells them what other things they want them to do.

Here in York County, SC, I can personally assure you that the recently retired and current directors of my county's elections office are both exceptionally well educated, adept at communicating facts about how voting laws are implemented, and honest as one might imagine...honest like when we're 4 and our Dad can do anything and Mom is the smartest woman in the world honest. These women could tell me it was snowing in August in South Carolina and I'd slip on a hat to keep my spate warm.

Anyway, if you want to read this guys excuses for why Instant Runoff Voting, election day registration, hand re-counts, fusion voting,Click on the Democrat Herald

Even the reform supporters seem to want to play down the idea that they are addressing some of the ways that we dis-enfranchise so many people. If we ultimately require a teller from Wal-Mart and her warehouse worker boyfriend to jump through any hoops, we risk loosing ever growing legions of non-voters. If we don't find ways for voters like me to have an impact, then pressure swells and pushes out somewhere. Maybe something non-party comes from the pressure, like a decision to go back to college and become a voting rights attorney.

But the bottom line is, if we don't find non-voters to elect us, and pay them back when we get elected by doing all the things we promised during the campaign, and for empowering them to take control over their lives. Competition is good in many ways and in many places, but so is cooperation. Cooperating is how you help people take control over their lives.

Read more!

Frankly, reading words like that scares me. If the Sec of State likes something, how likely is it that it's not screwing the Green Party and independents?

Well, over at the The Morning News, they say that the changes made in response to a successful Green Party court case.

Why are they OK with it? Because, while they lowered the numbers of signatures needed to establish a political party to 10,000, they shortened the number of days to gather them. The result is, the former plan, which was unconstitutional, required the party to gather 161 signatures a day, while the new law would require gathering 167 signatures a day.

Shouldn't you be able to send the legislature to jail for deliberately passing laws they know are unconstitutional?

This is a complicated political landscape we must operate in, and I am always so thrilled when we win power and do our jobs really well.

Read more!

This seems like big news to me folks. I just read at My San Antonio, kat announced that she is no longer in the running for the presidential slot. Instead, she is campaigning for District 1 City Council. kat, 33, is a long time activist in San Antonio.

Before you groan about kat swift's non-use of capitalization in her name, read this:

Beck Steiner, head of the local Sierra Club's political committee, is impressed with swift. Her answers to its candidates questionnaire were "the most complete and accurate" he'd seen so far this campaign season.

But he said that doesn't mean she's a shoo-in for the Sierra Club's endorsement, which will be awarded based on a candidate's stand on key environmental issues but also political acumen.

"She's going to be the greenest candidate," Steiner said, "but is she electable?"

But after his committee interviewed swift, he noted: "It looks like she's getting a lot more support than we'd anticipated."

Read more!

Ralph Ferrucci is running for Mayor of New Haven, CT. The New Haven Register says that this brings a total of four candidates in the race.

The Yale Daily News also has a story about Ralph getting into the race. The article says that Ralph participated in an online forum based in the New Haven community, answering readers questions and responding with answers up to 2000 words in length. It was at the conclusion of that process that he decided to run again.

Last time he ran against the mayor, Ralph won 15% of the vote on an $800 budget.

Ferrucci is planning to use public funding for his campaign. That will bring his campaign something like $15,000, still way less than a privately funded mayoral campaign can spend, but a lot more than $800! Plus, there are apparently corruption issues involved too. If only they had Instant Runoff Voting or some other form of voting reform. Even as it is, Ralph is a Green Party stalwart, and New Haven has elected Greens to municipal office before, so Go Get 'em Ralph!

Read more!

I hate to keep referencing him, but Wes over at CA Greening is expressing concerns about the California Green Party, it's leadership, and the processes the leadership is using to run the state party.

California is a HUGE chunk of the GPUS, but just as the German Greens were a HUGE part of the International Green Party while in power, the national Green Party can survive problems in California, if there are any.

I will say this: Wes was a Republican who became a Green in large part because the Green Party was based on and believed fundamentally in key principles that guided every position and tactic used by the Greens. No Green would, for example, use the sort of sickening attack ads both Republicans and Democrats use, not because it would be the best strategically, but because the Key Value of non-violence dictates that this sort of campaigning is not Green.

Unfortunately, some folks think that being an anti-party means that we are not going to use hard work, focus, leadership and money to win office. We must do all these things, and much more, while still remaining the anti-party party.

The Democratic and Republican parties are bereft of real principles. That doesn't mean that they can't bring great ideas to the table, but it does mean that most of them can be counted on to sell themselves to the highest bidder.

I have come to the conclusion that the real diving line in politics isn't Left vs Right, Authoritarian vs Libertarian, Marxist vs Capitalist. No, the real political fault line is Elitism or Populism. Greens believe that the people have the answers. Democrats and Republicans alike, by and large, in political circles believe in the rule of the political and corporate class. Whether Nuclear Power or Solar Power, these elitists want the power to flow to them and the decisions to be made by them, to their benefit.

Read more!

Gloria Mattera, a prominent New York Green and member of the steering committee for the Green Institute, helped lead a group of youngsters in a demonstration against the war recently. Over at Imagine a World Of, they have copied a story that covers the demonstration pretty completely.

Read more!

Over at CA Greening, Wes links to a couple of articles about environmental racism, and guess what? It's not new, and folks in the Green Party and their allies and friends have been fighting it for decades. Even the supposedly pro-environment Clinton administration did not even come close to getting it right.

Read more!

Over at Illini Pundit, they are promoting a campaign workshop offered by the local Green Party, available to all for $5.

Read more!

Frank Dunbaugh and Mark Miller sued the state of Maryland Board of Elections over a ballot access issue. That suit was sucessful, but years after the case was settled, the Board of Elections demanded files and a computer from one of the attorney's employer.

The MD Supreme Court has ruled for the Green Party's lawyer, and against the Board of Elections.

That the Green Party can survive at all in an environment like this is amazing to me.

Read more!

In a post at his blog, Lefti says that Peter Camejo was right when he pointed out

Low-income Californians pay a disproportionately large share of their income in state taxes, while the Golden State's richest citizens spend a much smaller share on taxes, according to a joint study by two research groups.

This is the sort of truth we Greens have been trying to show folks.

Read more!

Jill Bussiere writes about it at their website.

Read more!

The blog New York Greenfest includes a number of festivals across the state that the NY Greens are participating in.

I think this is a great idea for all of us to do. There are annual festivals all across the nation we can participate in, and we don't have to do all the grunt work to make it happen.

Read more!

Building the Green Party: Rachel's Article in Spring Sierra Atlantic

This is the first time I have used this "Blog this!" feature, so we'll see what happens.

Folks who don't get angry and frustrated by things like Rachel writes about here, I can't understand.

Read more!

In the Dilbert Blog, Scott Adams makes mention of the Green Party. Specifically he writes "I’m not making an anti-Bush or even an anti-Cheney statement here. It’s simply an observation that no one on the planet – Democrat or Republican or Green Party – thinks policies would improve if Cheney had the top spot."

Nice to know that we have penetrated the consciousness enough to be noticed by Scott Adams. Think he would have any more idea who we were than say, the Peace and Freedom Party or Libertarian Party, if Ralph Nader had not carried our banner in 2000? I have no doubt.

Read more!

One I had not run across before. She too should consider joining Green Bloggers.

The blog is called "Building the Green Party", and is sub-titled "A blog by a Green in New York"

I don't have time at the moment, but I plan to read over the site later. I must quit posting at the moment though, to get back to cleaning the house.

Oh shoot! Rachel's blog is right here!

Read more!

In a post at Buzztail, Rebecca Rotzler is quoted from a Green Party press release. She says, in part, "Democrats are happy to prolong the war for the very reasons that President Bush launched it in the first place -- profits for U.S. oil companies, as well as U.S. political and corporate dominance in the region and the strategic interests of Israel.""

Rotzler, Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, NY, is also a co-chair of the Green Party of the United States and is being courted to run for President on the Green Party line by the Draft Rotzler movement.

Read more!

Martin Luther King inspired millions with a speech beginning with the words 'I have a dream...'. Would he have inspired those millions with a speech framed as the 'I have a nightmare...' speech? We all have nightmares, sure, but I doubt that we can motivate others with them.

Stolen from an anonymous comment at another blog.

Read more!

So says Wes over at California Greening.

I must agree. Global climate change is a Green Party issue. Democrats and Republicans will try to steal this away from us, and they should be encouraged to do so, but so long as the Green Party continues to push for what we really need, we will always own the issue. without unrelenting pressure from the Green Party, Democrats and Republicans will always backslide when the cash is on the barrel head.

Read more!

Insight Magazine says so.

Having chanted, with vigor, "Bush and Gore: Corporate whores" at rallies to open the debates, that would be tough to swallow.

Read more!

Some is here at Colorado Confidential

Some is at Winter Patriot.

Read more!

They cover it at their blog, Green in Iowa.

Someone needs to get these folks signed up as a member of Green Bloggers!

Read more!

Check it out here. Daryl is a Green from Iowa who's apparently gearing up for another run for office.

Read more!

The website Third Party Watch has run a piece using a national Green Party press release for it's basis. The article is a History of Green Mayors.

Ian Wilder of New York pointed out in a comment that there are actually six current Green Mayors. The press release failed to include Mike Sellers, Cobleskill, NY.

Nothing behind the "Read more!" link on this one.

Read more!

ID 276 - Amendment to the GPUS Rules Procedures Rapid Endorsement Process

Votes Received So Far
Yes 49
No 4
Abstain 1


ID 274 - 2007 Annual National Meeting Budget

Votes Received So Far
Yes 52
Abstain 4


ID 272 - Allocation of Delegates to the National Committee of the Green Party version 2

Votes Received So Far
Yes 55
No 11
Abstain 2

Read more!

I guess I'm still the only person who thinks we should meet every *other* year, but that ands $354 will get you a cupo of coffee someday.

The proposal is passing 52 to 4.

I'm not keeping up with quorum requirements for states. Hope someone else is!

Read more!

The first up is Proprosal 272 It is entitled Allocation of Delegates to the National Committee of the Green Party version 2 and currently has 55 "Yes" votes, 11 :"No" votes, and 2 "abstain" Voting ends on the 15th at midnight West Coast Time

It appears to be headed for victory, but the last try lost by one vote I believe.

The full text of thew proposal is behind tghe "Read more!" link...

Background
The Delegate Apportionment Committee (DAC) was elected pursuant to GPUS proposal 175, worked for 10 months discussing and negotiating apportionment issues, achieved consensus, accepted amendments, and proposed a new delegate apportionment formula in the form of proposal 256. This proposal needed 66.7% approval to pass; proposal 256 received 65% approval. Since two major issues of contention seemed to be that of 1) proxies and 2) the Presidential voting strength allocation measure, this proposal differs from the DAC proposal only in 1) eliminating proxies for online voting, 2) offering two already existing allocation measures as alternative options for the Presidential voting strength measure, and 3) correcting the section of the ByLaws containing the old apportionment formula, and also specifying when we will consider policies and procedures for the new apportionment standing committee. We hope that these simple, yet significant changes, can now move us forward on this subject.
Proposal
Those parts of the By-laws which would otherwise be in conflict with this proposal shall be appropriately amended -- specifically, the last portion of Article II, Section 2 of the By-laws shall be deleted (beginning with the 5th paragraph ("Each member state...") and continuing to the end of Section 2 ("...meeting of the National Committee."), and that portion of the By-laws shall be replaced by the following sentence,

"The apportionment to the various state parties and caucuses of delegates to the National Committee shall be determined by rules established by the National Committee and incorporated into a Rules document separate from these Bylaws."

The rest of this proposal, below (from "A new Delegate Apportionment Committee shall be elected in 2010..." through Articles I through VII, and including the *footnote (ending with "...the next two years.") ) shall be incorporated into a Rules document. A new Delegate Apportionment Committee shall be elected in 2010 to revisit issues of proportionality in light of experience with this formula and to make a new proposal for delegate apportionment to the National Committee in 2011.

ALLOCATION OF DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE GREEN PARTY

ARTICLE I. RECALCULATION This apportionment will be recalculated every two years, in the odd numbered year following the national election year by the Apportionment Standing Committee (see Article VII). This committee shall start meeting between election day in the even numbered year and the following March 4, shall put out a call to state parties within two weeks requesting information necessary for the apportionment calculation, and will present the results of its recalculation to the National Committee by the end of the following May. The results of each apportionment recalculation must be accepted by the National Committee by a two thirds vote, and shall become effective at the conclusion of the vote.

ARTICLE II. DELEGATES AND VOTES Each delegate seat counts for one vote. Delegate votes may also be split, in denominations of half votes, in order to more accurately represent the opinions of each state's membership.

Accredited caucuses will have one vote.

ARTICLE III. SIZE OF THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE The National Committee shall consist of 200 ±2 delegates when all accredited state parties and caucuses are included. Should any new state party or caucus become accredited after an apportionment, the NC will be expanded by the number of delegates allotted to the newly entering member party or caucus. The next reapportionment will return the size of the NC to as close to 200 as the mathematics of the formula allows, within ± 2.

ARTICLE IV. MINIMUM VOTE All accredited state parties are entitled to a minimum of two votes and two delegates. However, a state party may voluntarily choose to have fewer than two votes or delegates if having two is a burden, and the Green Party of the U.S. may offer special assistance to state parties who choose to have only one vote, including but not limited to: special consideration for support of candidates by the Coordinated Campaign Committee, free bundles of the Green Pages newspaper and discounts or scholarships for delegates or observers attending national meetings.

ARTICLE V. PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION METHOD Each state party shall have two months from the Apportionment Committee's call for information to submit the information needed to calculate
their portion of seats. After receiving necessary data from each state party, the Apportionment Standing Committee will determine the proportion of delegates allocated to each state party using four measures of relative Green Party strength. These measures are based on estimating each state party's active contribution to the Green Party in terms of campaign strength, in-state voting strength, presidential voting strength, and counts of people.

Within most of these categories, there are multiple methods of determining the strength of a state party relative to parties in other states. The state may choose which method in each category to use. If the state does not choose, the Apportionment Standing Committee will use the method in each category that gives each state party its highest possible score. The final score is given in terms of a percentage of the National Committee.

The formula for calculating the number of delegates allocated to a given state party is as follows:

1. Using the choices of the state party, calculate the score in each of the four categories. Normalize each category so that the total percentage is 100%.

2. Add up these scores and divide by 4 to get an average score. This is the percentage of the delegation designated to the state.

3. If the percentage is less than the minimum percentage threshold of delegates allocated to each state, then two delegates will be allocated to that state party. The minimum percentage threshold is
{2 /[200 - (number of accredited caucuses)]} x 100%.

4. If the percentage is greater than the minimum threshold, that is the initial percentage of delegates allocated to the state party.

Once the initial percentages are calculated for all accredited parties, these values must be normalized to assure that the total percent of delegates equals 100%. The formula for normalizing the initial percentages is as follows:

5. Set all states with initial percentage scores below the minimum threshold value equal to the minimum threshold.

6. Add up the initial percentage scores of all states and divide each state's initial percentage by this total.

7. Repeat steps 5. and 6. until the total percentage of delegates allotted to all states (200 - number of accredited caucuses) equals approximately 100% (will usually take 3 to 4 iterations),
The number of delegates allocated to each state is calculated by multiplying the normalized percentage of each state by [200 - (number of accredited caucuses)] and rounding off to the nearest integer.

8. The total number of delegates allowed for a single state shall be capped at 21% of the target NC size (42 delegates).

9. The threshold for rounding may need to be adjusted in order to bring the total number of delegates within the range of ±2 of the target number.

ARTICLE VI. ALLOCATION MEASURES

The Apportionment Standing Committee will seek submissions of data from state Green Party organizations according to the following criteria:

1. Membership
The number of Green Party members in the state party as close as possible to the date of the start of the work of the committee. (This will then be calculated as a percentage of the total number of Green Party members in the United States.)

Green Party membership is defined as follows:

» In states where the Green Party can register voters, Green Party membership is defined as the number of voters that are registered in the Green Party. Green Party membership in these states may also include those who are ineligible to vote but are extended formal membership by the state party.

» In states without Green Party voter registration(*), Green Party membership is defined as the number of people who have filled the qualifications for membership in that state party, have signed up to be Green Party members, are included in the database of current members in that state party. Signers of ballot access petitions may be considered members of the Green Party if the signers willingly join the Green Party simultaneously or if signing the petition constitutes acceptance of membership in the Green Party according to state law. Calculations and email lists may not be substituted for membership rolls.

Solely for the purposes of standardizing this apportionment measure between states, after voting in a primary of another political party, Green Party members should re-affirm their Green Party membership with their state party. This may be handled on the honor system and does not require a significant extra administrative burden for the state party. The state party is free to count its own membership however it wants for other purposes; this restriction is solely for reporting this particular measure to the Apportionment Committee in a manner that makes the numbers as comparable as possible.

If state legal action results in a state Green party having its members legally invalidated, they may continue to use the same membership count until the next apportionment cycle.

NOTE: For the purposes of #2, Campaign Strength, and #3, State Voting Strength, Green Party Office Holders and Green Party Candidates must be Green Party members. They may not also be members of the Republican or Democratic Party or running solely on another political party?s ballot line. For State Voting Strength, if a candidate is listed on more than one party's ballot line, only the votes for the Green Party ballot line can be counted.

2. Campaign Strength

A. The number of Green Party Office Holders in your state as a percentage of the total number of Green Party Office Holders in all affiliated state parties. Green Party office holders are defined as members of the Green Party who are elected to public office in elections (not including internal party offices such as central committees). If they were elected in an election where less that 300 ballots were cast, they will count half.

B. The number of local and statewide Green Party Candidates that ran for office in your state during the last four-year election cycle as a percentage of the total number of local and statewide Green Party Candidates that ran for office in the U.S. in all affiliated state parties during the same period. Local or statewide Green Party Candidates are defined as Green Party members who run and appear on the ballot in public elections. If they ran in an election where fewer than 300 ballots were cast, they will count half.

C. The percentage of the total U.S. population that resides in your state, multiplied by 0.5. (This measure is designed to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws in some states. If used here, population may not be used in #3, State Voting Strength or in #4, Presidential Voting Strength.)

3. State Voting Strength

A. The number of votes cast for Green Party Candidates in your state during the last four-year election cycle as a percentage of the total number of votes cast for Green Party Candidates in the U.S during the same time.

B. The highest number of votes received by a single Green Party Candidate in your state during the last four-year election cycle as a percentage of the total number of Green Party votes received by the highest vote getter in each state in the U.S. during the same time.

C. The highest vote percentage received by a Green Party candidate in your state during the last four years in a statewide partisan election for Governor, Lt. Governor or U.S. Senate (or Mayor or Chair of the City Council for the District of Columbia) that is contested by both major political parties, weighted against the same data from every affiliated state Green Party. Because this measure, unlike all the others, is a percentage of a percentage, its effect shall be capped at a maximum of 2 extra delegates.

D. The percentage of the total U.S. population that resides in your state, multiplied by 0.5. (This measure is designed to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws in some states. If used here, population may not be used in #2, Campaign Strength or in #4, Presidential Voting Strength.)

4. Presidential Voting Strength

A. The number of votes cast for Green Party presidential nominee in your state in the November 2000 general election as a percentage of the number of votes cast for the same candidate nationwide.

B. The number of votes cast for Green Party presidential nominee in your state in the November 2004 general election as a percentage of the number of votes cast for the same candidate nationwide.

C. The percentage of the total U.S. population that resides in your state, multiplied by 0.5. (This measure is designed to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws in some states. If used here, population may not be used in #2 , Campaign Strength or in #3, State Voting Strength.)

D. As another option to compensate for overly restrictive ballot access laws, states may choose to repeat the Membership measure (Article VI, Section 1, above) in this category.

ARTICLE VII. RESOLUTION TO FORM AN APPORTIONMENT STANDING COMMITTEE

The GPUS hereby creates the Apportionment Standing Committee to make decisions regarding the implementation of the above formula. This committee will consult with state parties on state party numbers and apply the criteria stated in this proposal, as interpreted by the committee.

The structure of the Apportionment Standing Committee will be a volunteer committee following the structures and practices laid out in the GPUS bylaws and rules and procedures and consisting of up to 3 members per state. The National Committee agrees to consider a proposal for Policies and Procedures for the new Apportionment Standing Committee within six weeks after passage of this proposal.

Members of the committee must be Green Party members who have permission from their state party to serve. State parties are required to vet candidates for the knowledge and skill set needed for apportionment calculations, including the necessary mathematical understanding and spreadsheet skills.

The tasks laid out for the committee include the following:

1. Designing spreadsheets that perform the calculations of the formulas described above for delegate apportionment.

2. Soliciting the state parties to send the relevant data so that apportionment can be undertaken with the most complete data. (If a state party does not submit numbers in a timely fashion, the committee is empowered to use publicly available data or to allocate the delegate minimum to that state party until the next apportionment.)

3. Applying the criteria of this proposal to the data, plugging the most accurate available numbers into the formula, and completing the computations.

4. Developing a formal challenge process for data submitted by a state party or to the data entry or computational analysis, reviewing any such challenges, and making the final decision regarding the numbers to be used.

5. Reporting the results of apportionment to the NC in a timely fashion and presenting the proposal to approve the completed computations.

* The DAC recommends that the GPUS create an official roll of Green Party members in states without Green Party registration over the next two years.
Resources
CONTACTS: Liz Arnone, NJ- elizarnone@comcast.net; Greg Jan, CA - gregjan4@yahoo.com
References
None

Read more!