Politics is always politics and it is always about power.
The Green Party Primary in California included a vote for Camejo as a "favorite son" candidate, a place holder for later decisions. This is party politics as practiced in the Democratic and Republican Parties before rule changes made it irrelevant, giving the votes to the winner of the primary, and putting the emphasis on an expensive, advertising and media coverage sound-byte dominated voting process, all in the name of democratization.
The Green Party of California had a primry. It participated in the national convention, and now a group of it's leadership wants to overturn the results of that process. How are we different from those other parties that are castigated daily in Green forum? It looks like the answer is "not very much."
Greens claim to stand for democracy, and when the results are not to someone's liking, some claim that the results were determined by a well organized minority.
Assume that is true, then where was the organizational skill of a Nader - Camejo campaign? If they are the majority and had not the organizational skill to do what they needed to do, then I don't think that is a good qualification for higher office.
It they were not the majority, then they are just playing power politics to overturn a rules based decision.
In either case, it has a smell that I do not like.
I voted for Nader in the last election. I wrote op ed pieces and made local phone calls on his behalf. This, in spite of the fact that Nader is not a Green. This year, the party convention chose a candidate who IS a Green. Though lacking Nader's national reputation, he has done the work to deserve the job. I can think of no one who has done more all over this country than David Cobb. Convince me that I am wrong.
The second question that I have is whether or not the bylaws of the Green Party of California will allow this action to take place. It is not easy for a member to figure this out. To begin with, the Bylaws link on the CAGREENS.ORG site loads the September 2001 version of the Bylaws. The Bylaws archive contains a December 2003 version. Which previails? Assuming that the 2003 version is official, then the following seem to be pertinent.
Article 11-1.1 states that "No decision of the GPUS is binding on the GPCA without its consent." I assume that this means the State can put whatever candidate it pleases on the ballot for President.
A majority of the CC can call for a special meeting of the General Assembly. That is 11 of the 20 members. The Bylaws require circulating the Agenda 3 weeks prior to the meeting. Will that give enough time to satisfy State Law?
I do not know.
Whatever way this turns out, I can see the possibility of it ending up in Court, expensive at a time we can not afford it.
Posted by at August 8, 2004 02:20 PM