CA Green Party Facing Potential Disaster on November 2nd - Urgent Help Needed

Dear Greens and Progressives,

The Green Party is facing a potential disaster on November 2. If Proposition 62 passes, we will (essentially) never again be able to participate in a November general election. We will never again be a part of the televised general election debates. In fact, media coverage of any kind will quite probably shrink to almost zero. We could very likely soon be facing extinction in the wake of a Prop. 62 victory.

Given our limited resources, probably the smartest action we can take to defeat Prop. 62 will be to mount a huge letters-to-the-editor campaign. If we can get four to seven 'No on 62' letters published in most every newspaper in the state, then we just might be able to defeat 62.

Below is a sample letter-to-the-editor, an op-ed against 62 that was published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, and the Green Party of Alameda County Voter Guide write-up on Props. 60 and 62. (Prop. 60, if it receives more votes than Prop. 62, is another way that Prop. 62 can be defeated. Additional good info. on 60, and 62, is at: http://www.yeson60.com ).

So, all Greens and Progressives . . . THIS COMING WEEK, PLEASE WRITE A LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR against Prop. 62 (and/or supporting Prop. 60), and please send it to EVERY significant newspaper in your county or local area! (You're welcome to use the sample letter verbatim, but if you're the first person in your county to do so, be sure to inform other Greens in your county of that).

ALSO, PLEASE E-MAIL THE LETTERS THAT YOU CREATE to the state party Campaigns and Candidates listserve, at:
gpca-ccwg [at] cagreens.org (That will give the rest of us ideas for sending similar letters to papers in our home counties!).

Lastly, ** RIGHT AWAY, PLEASE SEND THIS E-MAIL** to every Green listserve in California that hasn't yet posted it!! (And of course, please send it to other Greens who may not be on those listserves. If you can post this info. on your county or local website, that will help too. And even better, start a discussion on your local Green listserve about FLOODING your local papers with letters, ASAP!).

Unfortunately, we don't have much time to defeat Prop. 62, to stave off potential disaster. The next two weeks are ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL, as it becomes increasingly difficult to get letters published after October 18. PLEASE SEND IN YOUR LETTERS JUST AS SOON AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN! The future of the Green Party depends on it!

Gerg Jan
Alameda County Green Party

Sample Letter-to-the-Editor
(This was written for a Democratic district. Please switch 'Democrats' and 'Republicans' for a Republican district)


Editor,

Big business interests are trying to limit our voting choices with Prop. 62. They want to restrict our options to just two candidates for the November general election, even if those two candidates are both from the same political party. And that party doesn't even have to be the party that receives the most votes in the primary election.

Here's an example of the madness they're proposing. Suppose two Republicans run in the primary, and they receive 20% and 19% of the vote. Suppose four Democrats run, and they receive 18%, 17%, 15%, and 11%. Incredibly, under 62, only the two Republicans would advance to the general election, even though their combined total is just 39%, while the Democrats, who received 61%, would be completely shut out.

Individual billionaires associated with the following companies paid at least $50,000 each for the qualifying signatures for Prop. 62: Broad & Kaufman, the Gap, Wesco Financial, Paramount Farms, and Berkshire Hathaway; Countrywide Home Loans paid $350,000.

No other state, other than Louisiana, uses this voting scheme. Don't let the billionaires fool you on this one. They're trying to confine our November election choices to just two well-financed candidates who will serve their narrow pro big business interests. Vote No on Proposition 62.


San Francisco Bay Guardian
http://www.sfbg.com/38/49/x_oped.html

Opinion
by richard winger


The Prop. 62 scam

PROPOSITION 62 WAS placed on the November state ballot by big-
business interests. It would require that all candidates for Congress and state office run on a single primary ballot. Voters would choose from that primary ballot, and the top two vote getters would then compete in November. There would be no other route onto the November ballot except by coming in first or second in the March primary.

The money that paid for the signature-collecting firm to get Prop. 62 on the ballot came from the following: Countrywide Home Loans, $350,000; Charles Munger, CEO of Wesco Financial, $200,000; and Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, $100,000. Other individuals who gave $100,000 are Elizabeth Rogers, Otis Booth, Stewart Resnick, Jerry Perenchio, and Richard Riordan. Individuals who gave $50,000 are Eli Broad, Haim Saban, Robert Day, and Donald Fisher.

Our California legislature is very diverse, not only ethnically and by gender and sexual orientation, but also in ideology. Yes, there are wild-eyed conservatives in our state legislature, but there also are solid, principled liberals. And yes, sometimes our legislators fight bitterly with each other, and it does take a while to get our budget passed. But that very diversity guarantees that every significant group in California has a spokesperson in the legislature.

Big business doesn't like our legislature. It would prefer a bland mix of "moderates," who would pass the budget on time and see to it that California's "business climate" took primacy over other concerns.

The only other state with an election system like Prop. 62's is
Louisiana, but, ironically, even Louisiana's system is better than Prop. 62's. In Louisiana, all candidates for Congress, whether they're Socialists, Libertarians, Greens, Republicans, or Democrats, have easy access to the November ballot. A typical Louisiana November congressional ballot contains three Republicans, three Democrats, and a minor-party or independent candidate. If no one gets 50 percent of the votes (which only happens 15 percent of the time), the top two compete in a December runoff. So at least every political party gets to run an on-the-ballot campaign in the fall, when voters are paying attention to political ideas.

But in California, Prop. 62 would make all candidates run in March. Then only the top two vote getters could run in November. This would inevitably result in a November ballot with no minor-party or independent candidates. We know this because California has held similar blanket primaries in the past, 408 times. In all 408 instances, no one but a Democrat or a Republican ever placed first or second (except in the 12 cases when only one major-party member was running). Even Audie Bock, who was elected to the legislature as a Green in a 1999 special election, couldn't have qualified for the runoff ballot, since she was a distant third in the first round. Similarly, Jesse Ventura, elected governor of Minnesota in November 1998 as the Reform Party nominee, only polled 3 percent in Minnesota's September 1998 open primary. Under Prop. 62, he couldn't have run in November either.

Prop. 62 would give us a November ballot with no outlet for voters who want to vote for parties other than the Democratic and Republican ones. There wouldn't be any minor-party election campaigns during the September-October period when voters are interested in politics.

Prop. 62 could also disenfranchise major-party voters. Imagine a
primary with these results: Smith, Republican, 23 percent; Jones, Republican, 22 percent; Lee, Democrat, 21 percent; Sanchez, Democrat, 20 percent; Hawkins, Democrat, 14 percent. Under Prop. 62, the general election would contain only two Republicans, even though in the primary 55 percent of the voters had preferred a Democrat. In this case, Democrats would have no Democrat to vote for in November, even though the district leans Democratic and chances are that a Democrat could have won under our old (existing) system.

If you want to preserve diversity in our legislature, and diversity on our November ballots, vote no on 62.

Richard Winger is a ballot-access consultant.



Green Party of Alameda County Voter Guide write-ups:





Prop. 60 -- Election Rights of Political Parties -- YES



Prop. 60 was passed by the state legislature as a way to defeat Prop. 62. Because we are strongly opposed to Prop. 62 we support Prop. 60. (Please see below for our write-up explaining why we strongly oppose Prop. 62).



Prop. 60 will amend the state constitution so that each recognized political party in California will be guaranteed a ballot line on the General Election ballot. If both Prop. 60 and Prop. 62 pass, whichever proposition receives the highest vote total will take effect.



We acknowledge that much genuine electoral reform needs to happen in California, and that Prop. 60, unfortunately, will merely maintain the status quo. However, because Prop. 62 will simply be devastating for democracy (especially for the Green Party and other smaller parties), we strongly urge you to vote Yes, for Proposition 60.



As we go to press, it looks like significant funds will be spent to pass Prop. 62. So unfortunately we may not be able to defeat 62 directly. By the time you read this, the "Yes" on Prop. 60 campaign may have emerged as our best hope of defeating Prop. 62. Please vote Yes on Prop. 60. For more information, please see: http://www.yeson60.com







Prop 62 – Limited Choice Primary Elections -- NO, NO, NO!



Proposition 62 will be a disaster for democracy, especially for the Green Party and all other smaller political parties. If Prop. 62 passes, voters will be limited to choosing between just two candidates in the November general election. And for many of the races, the "choice" presented to voters will incredibly be a one-party election! The two candidates will both be from the same party, and no candidates from any other political parties will be allowed on the ballot!



Proposition 62 will also affect all partisan primary elections in California except the Presidential primary. If Prop. 62 passes, all voters of all parties (or lack thereof) will receive identical primary ballots.



The ballots will list all candidates and their party affiliation from all the parties in a single group, and the candidates who get to move on to the General Election will be the top two who received the most votes, regardless of their party affiliation.



For the regular General Election voters will receive a ballot limited to only those two choices, even if these two candidates are of the same party. Incredibly, voters could not only often end up with a general election limited to just two candidates from the same party, but that party could well not even be the party that got the most votes in the primary! For example, in the primary, if only two Republicans run, with one getting 19% and the other 18%, but four Democrats run, getting 17%, 16%, 11%, and 7%, with candidates from other parties (and independents) sharing the remaining 12%, then the two Republicans will advance to the General Election, despite the fact that they together only received 37% of the vote, while Democratic candidates together received 51%, and all non-Republicans combined totaled 63%!



Among the he chief sponsors of Proposition 62 are Richard Riordan, Steve Westly, Leon Panetta, and Eli Broad, with major funding coming from corporations and their CEO's.



Already, gerrymandering has created an overwhelming majority of safe districts so that contested, open, and public electioneering has largely gone by the wayside. The candidates do not have to answer the tough questions. And Prop. 62 would extend this by severely eliminating most of the competition, including all of the smaller parties.



The Green Party devotes its volunteer time and energy to reform our democracy, to make it more open, more representative, more fair, and more democratic.



Proposition 62 moves drastically in the opposite direction, limiting our General Election choices to the two pre-ordained and highest vote getters. It is a recipe for less political choice, less accountability to the issues and needs of a constituency, and more control for those moneyed powerful people who pull the levers on the Media and major political parties.



Please help us stop this outrageous assault on what remains of our democracy! Vote No on Prop. 62. For more information, please see: http://www.noon62.com/home