Re: Bylaws Proposal re: CA specific platform

[Mike Van Roy]

Hi all

I wasn't around for the Great Platform Wars but let me finally offer my thoughts.

Who does the platform benefit? It mostly benefits candidates who want guidance in crafting their campaign messaging. 

In theory if there is a state issue and people outside the party want to know the party's position on that issue, the platform could be of value. But of greater value would be a Beacon post or press release or something else on our website.

But who wrote the platforms? People who, for whatever reason, really like writing platforms.

So, in software terms, there was a disconnect between the end users and the developers. The end users needed a specific thing but the developers did their own thing.

Plus I'm not sure it makes sense to have a platform adopted by one group and a program adopted by another. it almost guarantees that eventually they'll conflict.

These would have to be considered in the drafting of a bylaw to bring the platform back.

But as others have said I'm not sure that there is popular support for doing so anyway. If there isn't then I don't think it's something the committee should take up.

Richard or whoever could also submit a proposal as an individual member and other individual members, on the committee or not, are free to help him do that.

Mike Van Roy

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Thursday, October 2nd, 2025 at 5:30 PM, Richard Fast <fastri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bylaws Committee,

Thank you for your feedback. I'm less concerned with the process than the final result. I worry about giving the delegates sufficient notice and time to read all proposed documents prior to the convention. What I don't want to happen is the delegates have a menu to choose from but the majority protest that they did not have enough time to read them and properly discuss them and then nothing happens. My estimate is that it would take two hours for someone to comfortably read the 3 documents I mentioned, without any other document being added for consideration. By itself, that should be reasonable, but of course the delegates, if they're doing their homework, will have many other proposals to consider (Bylaws, etc.) and so it is easy to imagine delegates only focus on Bylaws and forget/sidestep all the platform documents and then, when it's time to consider this proposal, they were so distracted that we don't have the serious discussion that adoption of a state specific platform really deserves. So, in an effort to make this proposal as simple as possible, I will heed your advice and try to craft specific language that takes that into account. I welcome anyone who wishes to help me in this project.

Richard Fast

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 2:43 PM Joe Dehn <n...@ca.lp.org> wrote:

I agree with what others have said, that it is not the job of the Bylaws Committee to propose a platform, or even a menu of possible platforms. It would be our job, if we believe that the general idea has support from enough members, to propose the mechanisms through which the delegates can construct a platform, a mechanism that might end up looking very similar to what we had before. However, the way that Richard presented his request does suggest, if we are going to address this issue at all, that we consider a mechanism that more clearly allows for adoption/replacement of the entire platform, instead of or as an alternative to making incremental modifications. As we all presumably remember, this was a very contentious issue in the past, with some people saying that the old Platform was just too far gone and had to be entirely replaced with something very different in size or style, and other people arguing that the bylaws did not allow any such move -- that to accomplish that would require separate votes on each and every plank. With the old bylaws provisions and the old Platform both now gone, there is not much point in arguing about either of them, and we are now in a position to think about those two approaches in a more detached way.

On Sunday, September 28, 2025 at 4:33:26 PM UTC-7 Richard Fast wrote:

All,

When the LPCA lost its state specific platform a few years ago, the party also lost part of its unique identity as the California affiliate of the national party.

To rectify this problem, I proposed eliminating in the LPCA Bylaws all mention of the national platform being the state platform and instead, inserting new language mandating a California specific platform.

Assuming this idea is well received by the delegates in San Diego, I would further propose giving the delegates three (3) documents to choose from: 1) the original LPCA platform prior to its deletion, 2) Judge Jim Gray's proposed platform, and 3) Kevin Shaw's skeleton platform. I would also welcome consideration of any other similar documents. In true LP fashion, NOTA would of course be included as an option.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need clarity on this concept.

In Liberty,

Richard Fast

Secretary

LP San Francisco