Fwd: transcript: meeting on Sat. 5 PM?
Rachel H. for LPWA Communications
This is an exact transcript of our meeting, including just 4 people, so we really need the rest of you. It is sometimes hard to read these, so Janet has volunteered to do a easy to read version.
LindeHere’s the transcript:
17:04:39 Linde Good. where's Janet?
17:04:41 paulmcclintock Janet, type Hi
17:06:15 Linde I'm Phoning her.
17:06:58 JanetJordan Hi I'm here (thanks Linde)
17:07:20 Linde Phoninh Bob
17:09:12 Linde He's busy.
17:09:41 paulmcclintock FYI, I have Larry Pratt on the phone with me. He can't connect to the chat room, so any of his remarks, I will type in, and tell him anything on the chat room.
17:09:58 Linde Ok, so I sent everyone some more items I found while reading the whole bill. The obvious is to take out primary or primaries where needed. Right?
17:10:17 Linde Glad you have Larry.
17:13:17 Linde I also fignured that we could slip in something to require that parties using state facilities for a presidential party primary should repay the state and counties. in Sec 51
17:14:14 JanetJordan How can we "take out primaries"? We have this top 2 system, it's predicated on primaries.
17:14:17 Linde What do you think?
17:14:48 Linde I hope enough time has passed to modify initiatives.
17:16:03 JanetJordan We can suggest taking out primaries and saying it can all be done in the general election, but that is the same as suggesting IRV and it hasn't flown in the past.
17:16:55 Linde We could suggest the use of the general for all candidates as a cost cutting measure, and add in the modified 1907 law that allows a second choice where there are more than 2 candidates.
17:19:54 paulmcclintock I tend to agree with Janet. San Francisco has IRV (RCV) allowing 3 candidates to be suggested, but...
**** As does Pierce Co. - big 2 are fighting it. Too many minors won? Not sure.
17:19:59 JanetJordan Do you think they are tired of the costs of the Top 2 system? I agree your suggestion is a follow-on to the Top 2, it assumes we like the idea of eliminating all but the top 2 vote-getters but modifies it by doing it all in one election. Do you think it would be more favorably recieved now?
17:20:16 Linde and if that will not fly, we could use Paul's Texas law based idea, of holding a November general with all candidates on the ballot, and a runoff 6 weeks later only for top two with no majority winner.
17:20:17 paulmcclintock this is nothing more than a modified IRV, and any form of IRV is a huge uphill battle.
17:21:33 Linde It is harder to fight against an old law fron our own state than something new. Especially if the old law does not require any new modifications.
17:22:41 JanetJordan I am convincing myself that the Top 2 is part-way towards the goal of IRV and maybe we should have talks with representatives to see if they are beginning to see the light.
17:23:37 JanetJordan Maybe cost saving would be a big seller in this economic climate.
17:23:40 Linde I have seen the knee-jerk reaction to the words, IRV or RCV, and I think they might be able to think if we use second choice instead.
17:25:09 JanetJordan We had some other issues to take up that were less radical than removing the primary. One was getting recognition as minor parties.
17:26:23 JanetJordan I actually don't think getting 100 signatures is too onerous. The current version of the bill gives us more time to do it, we probably could just get 100 members to sign.
17:26:40 Linde Yes, we have that covered in the original modifications, with a one-year deadline to gather 100 sigs to run candidates. We also need to correct the definition of major party, as it leaves out the Am. Hertiage and Prog. Parties.
17:26:57 paulmcclintock Larry says: I don't like the term "minor parites" - it is an automatic negative.
17:27:56 JanetJordan well it's a negative that we don't have as many people as the two lock-step parties. The name just recognizes it.
17:28:31 JanetJordan Linde, how would you like the definition of major party worded?
17:28:34 Linde I suggest we add that if a minor party candidate gets 5% in a statewide race or wins any one seat in the state legislature that party is a major party. I agree with you on the discriminatory nature of it, but either we define it or they do.
17:29:23 Linde They just allow those who get 1% in a presidential race. Not great for us state parties.
17:30:10 paulmcclintock Larry: I prefer use of "independent party" rather than "minor party"
17:30:49 paulmcclintock Larry - why - because "minor" is negative, "independent" is more accurate
17:31:02 JanetJordan Isn't that confusing -- since "independent" has traditionally meant "of no party"?
17:31:39 Linde So do I, but we have a problem with the law's wording in that they won't budge on that one. We can use Independent party means independent of the r's and D's ourselves.
17:32:21 Linde I suggest we add that if a minor party candidate gets 5% in a statewide race or wins any one seat in the state legislature that party is a major party. I agree with you on the discriminatory nature of it, but either we define it or they do.
17:33:16 JanetJordan Going back to the definition of a major party -- 1% in a statewide race should do it since it is now only 1% of the presidential race. Or, as you said, one seat in the state legislature.
17:33:32 Linde Ok by me.
17:34:49 Linde Back to another idea.we could slip in something to require that parties using state facilities for a presidential party primary should repay the state and counties. in Sec 51
17:34:51 JanetJordan How about working on recognition of the party's right to choose its representative?
17:35:45 JanetJordan Yes, good idea. Makes the cost of the primary come front and center.
17:36:27 JanetJordan Paul and Larry, do you like that idea?
17:36:28 Linde Yes. We could add the bit about a line in the voter's pamphlet allowing the trademarked party to say if they endorse or do not endorse any candidate using our trademarked party names. In Sec 29
17:37:18 JanetJordan I think the Dems and Repubs would go for that.
17:37:52 Linde Um, which? They pay for their primary or trademarked names?
17:38:21 JanetJordan allowing the party to say if they endorse the candidate.
17:38:40 Linde I agree, they would like that.
17:39:00 Linde Larry has some ideas on that issue.
17:40:23 JanetJordan The state had to make all the races non-party so it would be constitutional. So does a statement about endorsing the candidate bring it back to being a party-based race again? Make it unconstitutional?
17:41:07 JanetJordan Personally I think the endorsement thing is just extra information for the voter.
17:41:20 Linde IDK, but it would not be on the ballot, which could be the sticking point. If in the pamphlet, it is less of a problem.
17:42:09 Linde Have we lost Paul?
17:42:13 paulmcclintock Im here
17:42:26 Linde Whew!
17:42:32 paulmcclintock Hard to keep Larry aprised and type too
17:42:44 Linde No joke.
17:42:52 JanetJordan i'm glad Larry is adding his 2 cents.
17:43:33 Linde Is there some way we can send this whole chat to those missing the meeting?
17:43:39 paulmcclintock Yes
17:44:30 Linde Great. I think we should do that. I hope everyone got the note from Richard Shepard bowing out of this.
17:45:14 JanetJordan Another problem -- getting recognition on the primary ballot (assuming we can't get rid of the primary)
17:45:45 Linde What do you mean?
17:46:29 JanetJordan I don't know. Thinking of something else probably.
17:49:07 Linde It will likely come to you later. Here's some thoughts on Sec. 66 We should look out for Independents, since no one else will. in (2) It should be added that if an Independent legislator should vacate an office before their term expires, a special election will be held to replace that legislator rather than filing the vacancy with the member of any political
17:49:09 JanetJordan Yes I was thinking of the previous system, where the Dems and Repubs were in the primary but not us since our primary was on the streets. Just confused.
17:49:52 JanetJordan That's a good idea.
17:51:14 Linde And my personal fave: (21b) of Sec 66, ...on behalf of the debate or forum sponsor as long as all candidates for the same political office have been invited to participate in a timely manor...
17:53:12 JanetJordan Yes, good point. If they only invite their favorite candidates, it's just more self-promotion.
17:53:50 paulmcclintock I have some concern on this...
17:54:09 paulmcclintock Arnold won the gov race in CA on a ballot with over 100 candidates...
17:55:39 Linde It's a section on what is considered advertising. They would have to admit it was a political ad if not all candidates are invited.
17:56:32 JanetJordan Paul might be thinking it should be OK to invite a select few. Since otherwise you might have to invite over 100. But I've never heard of such a situaiton in WA.
17:57:25 Linde I think that stuff for just your own party is not the same, and if not excluded, we can add an exclusion.
17:58:17 paulmcclintock If we have a race, say for Gov, with 10 candidates (not unrealistic), would you allot the same amount of debate time to each?
17:59:10 JanetJordan I think it would be fair to do so. You just have to choose questions carefully so they won't go on and on.
17:59:39 JanetJordan How would you decide whom to exclude, if you didn't invite them all?
18:00:06 paulmcclintock If you have 20 candidates, none will get to say much. It won't serve the voter's needs.
18:00:32 Linde Heck yeah. Other wise they keep us out of the open to the public debates and forums. As lArry how many forums he was invited to as a candidate.
18:01:07 paulmcclintock As I mentioned to Larry just now, brainstorming, suppose we had a top-four primary with IRV for the general, and debates would have to have all candidates if 4 or fewer.
18:01:23 JanetJordan I agree 20 is a lot in a debate, but I think the problem lies in having 20 candidates. That's too many candidates (not that I know how to cut it down)
18:01:36 paulmcclintock Larry: zero.
18:02:19 JanetJordan What do you mean, zero?
18:02:41 JanetJordan Oh, how many he was invited to. That figures.
18:02:52 Linde Back to the problem the state leg has with the word, IRV. Making it a top four might work in some ways, but many races have one candidate.
18:03:22 paulmcclintock Ask Larry how many forums he was invited to as a candidate. Ans: zero
18:03:48 JanetJordan Yes, got it.
18:04:44 Linde I think we can use the fact of the second choice provision being an old Washington state law to our advantage. Especially if the candidate must win by a majority to keep the second choice from kicking in.
18:05:34 JanetJordan I agree it's a point on our side. Why exactly was that law discarded?
18:06:04 Linde I can't find that. Maybe too many 3rd party people were winning.
18:08:40 JanetJordan I think you and I, Linde, agree there is some chance of a better reception from our representatives now than there was in the past, and it might be worth approaching them. Right?
18:10:06 Linde Some of them, yes. We need to meet with Sen Hargrove and Sen. McDermott soon, with our ammendments to get them heard in the state legislature. They do all this stuff now.
18:10:31 JanetJordan All what stuff?
18:11:18 Linde Looking at modifying bills, sponsoring bills, etc. Those two apparently are the key players with this particular bill.
18:12:30 JanetJordan Paul and Larry, what do you think? Would it do any good, or any harm, to talk to them?
18:13:10 Linde And Hargrove is out in Jefferson County.
18:13:36 paulmcclintock Paul: no harm.
18:13:58 paulmcclintock Larry: yeah, we have to talk to them.
18:14:12 Linde Mc Dermott kinda likes us 3rds.
18:14:33 JanetJordan I think we have some good specific amendments to propose.
18:14:35 paulmcclintock Larry: it might be better to have multiple parties represented at the meeting.
18:14:56 paulmcclintock anything else to discuss at present?
18:15:05 JanetJordan Yes, definitely.
18:15:07 Linde YES! It makes it clear that more than one POV is part of this.
18:15:52 JanetJordan Anything else to discuss -- only that so few of us were at this meeting and we need to get input from the others.
18:16:04 Linde Yes, There is a problem with the vote by mail only thing, with homeless voters having no way to vote.
18:16:36 Linde And I agree, we should send this to the others so they can read and comment. Many eyes = fewer mistakes.
18:16:55 JanetJordan Don't they have a problem in any case, since you have to register with an address?
18:17:17 Linde They are allowed to use a government building nearby.
18:18:28 JanetJordan So why can't the nearby government building take in their ballots, and they can go there, pick them up, mark them, mail them back from there?
18:19:12 Linde I would like to have someone put this into a clear message we can send to Paul Sclossman to look at for legal stuff, if he is willing.
18:19:35 Linde That makes sense.
18:20:18 JanetJordan Do you want me to give it a try? I can't promise I will capture everything but you all can correct it afterwards.
18:20:20 paulmcclintock Larry has to go soon.
18:20:35 JanetJordan Especially if I can save this chat session to look at.
18:20:44 JanetJordan Can someone tell me how to do that?
18:20:58 paulmcclintock I'll save the chat and email it to Linde.
18:21:10 Linde Thank you Janet for offering to do that. And thank you Paul for the use of your chat room, and thank you Larry for making a big effort to be here.
18:21:37 JanetJordan Thank you Linde for getting us organized. You had to send out many emails.
18:22:00 Linde Step one is done. Yeah us.
18:22:11 JanetJordan Goodbye all.
18:22:14 paulmcclintock Thanks all. I'll save up to here and email it to Linde and Janet and Larry. Linde can forward to others.
18:22:20 Linde Bye