Green News Roundup

The Green Party of Suffolk County issued a Social Media Release via pitchengine.com announcing the election of Suffolk County Green Matthew Lavery to the Green Party House Campaign Committee. In the release they point to his experience in the Green Party in Norwich, Norfolk England, and his work on a campaign for the European Parliament for Rupert Read, who is a Norwich City Councilor. The announcement includes a video.

Indian Country Today covers an appearance in Seattle March 18 – 19 for discussions on diversity and environmental stewardship by Winnona LaDuke, Green Party Vice-Presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000.

The High Springs Herald carries a story about Michael Canney, who is running for Seat 4 in the April 14th Alachua (FL) City Commission election. His website includes information about Alachua City Manager Clovis Watson Jr., who it seems resigned, and now is about to be re-appointed without discussion. H/T to Anita Stewart for the story, posted to her FaceBook page.

In this article at the News Gazette, Republican Mayoral nominee Rex Bradfield bemoans his loss in that race, expresses dismay that the voters voted along party lines, and explains that he thought the Green Party nominee Durl Kruse would take votes away from the Democrat.

Over at Independent Political Report, writer Ross Levin covers the campaign of Lee Scott Laugenour for Lenox, Massachusetts town select board. Langenhour is an active member of the Green-Rainbow Party and, according to this article at the Berkshire Eagle, is a ten year resident of the town, serves on the board of the Berkshire Regional Transit Authority, and has been married to his husband for four years. To carry the thanks forward, Levin pays kudos to Green Ferret.

Levin also writes about Green Mayor Gayle McLaughlin of Richmond, CA here, noting that she is pushing for green building requirements in that city. The Contra Costa Times reports that the proposal is

“in the middle of the pack when it comes to how stringent its requirements would be for commercial construction, and a little above the middle when it comes to residential construction.”

Finally, in a press release the Green Party national office announced that the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on the Green’s constitutional challenge to the manipulation of presidential elections. The statement says that the court has issued a ruling that, while dismissing the plaintiff for lack of standing, did not reject the validity of his arguments challenging the Electoral College based on the Mal-Apportionment Penalty clause of the 14th Amendment. The case was filed pro-se by Asa Gordon of the DC Statehood Green Party.

  1. St. Fu says:

    I love these news round ups. Thank you.

  2. Gregg Jocoy says:

    You are welcome St. Fu. :-) We aim to please.

  3. mvymvy says:

    The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
    Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

    Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

    In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

  4. mvymvy says:

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by 1,512 state legislators in 48 states.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 71%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 73% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 25 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  1. There are no trackbacks for this post yet.