GPCA Platform

Democracy & Electoral Reform





We are committed to mobilizing the participation of large numbers of people at the local level and we challenge the notion that only experienced politicians and expert bureaucrats are needed in Sacramento and Washington. Grassroots democracy, one of the Green Party's 10 Key Values, is a type of democracy in which we, as individuals and as communities, create our own futures, design our own lives, determine our own priorities and, thereby, exercise the fullness of our humanity. Our goal is direct, participatory, grassroots democracy centered around deeply democratic community assemblies and bioregional confederations. To accomplish this goal, our current focus is on proportional representation. It will give voters more choice, allow more voters to vote for winners, and break up the two-party monopoly, which discourages participation.

The Green Party believes that the initiative / referendum / recall process is an essential part of California politics and, on balance, a useful way of furthering grassroots democracy.

Initiatives

Past elections have seen an abundance of initiatives that have been variously received by the voters.

Perhaps the most damaging elements of the California initiative process from a Green perspective are the cost and time constraints involved in ballot qualification. In order to qualify, supporters must gather the signatures of five percent of the registered voters within 150 days. In practice, considerable organizational talent and large sums of money are needed to qualify (at least 50 cents per signature). The professionals who gather such signatures are not interested in educating the voters about the issues. They have found that many Californians, when properly approached, will put an initiative on the ballot without knowing more about it than its title.

Currently, changes in the law are being planned that would make the process even less accessible to voters.

The Green Party advocates reforming the initiative process:

Extend the period of time for gathering signatures to 180 days.
Require that at least 15% of all signatures be gathered by unpaid volunteers.
Require both proponents and opponents of an initiative to inform the voters about the issues, using government-sponsored means.
Require that organizational proponents of initiatives be prominently listed at the beginning of every initiative.

Referenda

The Green Party supports the use of petitionary referenda as a viable recourse in keeping elected officials sensitive to significant issues and public opinion. The petitionary referenda gives citizens the chance to repeal bills recently passed by the legislature and approved by the governor.

In contrast to the initiative, the use of petitionary referenda is in decline - only six petitionary referenda have qualified for the ballot since 1940. This is due, in part, to the referendum process: proponents of a referendum must gather a number of signatures equal to five percent of the votes cast for the governor in the last election, and must do so within 90 days of the bill's passage. The referendum process excludes certain types of bills such as tax levies, appropriation measures, calls for special elections, etc.

The Green Party recommends that we reactivate the referendum process:

Require companies doing business in the California initiative industry to set aside a portion of their revenues and facilities for use by groups unable to pay full fare for such services.
Reduce the number of signatures required to qualify a referendum for the ballot to three percent of the votes cast for the governor in the last election.

Recall

As in the case of the initiative and referendum, the recall process gives citizens a chance to practice grassroots democracy by removing elected officials who are disapproved of by a majority of voters.

Rarely has a recall effort against a state-level officeholder ever qualified for the ballot. It has sometimes been abused by groups seeking political ends other than removing an officeholder who they feel has performed poorly. Also, some citizens simply don't understand the meaning of the term "recall."

The Green Party proposes simplifying the recall process:

Substitute the term "removal" for "recall."
Require all signatures for a removal effort be obtained through voluntary solicitation.

Democracy refers as much to a lively political culture as to a system of government. A diverse society needs a pluralistic structure to allow the widest possible range of people to have their voices heard. To truly enfranchise citizens, we must ensure that everyone has their say.

In the ten years from 1990 to 2000, the average turnout of eligible voters in Presidential election years was 53%, and in non-Presidential elections years it was 43%. This means, in a two-way, winner-take-all race, the winning candidate for a state-level office needed only an average of 27% of the eligible voters to win (53% x 50.1%) in a Presidential election year, and only 22% (43% x 50.1%) in a non-Presidential election year. It is difficult to believe that elections where so few participate or vote for winning candidates can be considered legitimate or representative.

Additionally, the effects of the decennial redistricting process and partisan / incumbent gerrymandering produce insidious distortions of democracy. A study by the non-partisan Center for Voting and Democracy showed that redistricting turned 80% of congressional districts into non-competitive, one-party bastions where voters had little choice but to ratify the candidate of the major party that controlled that district. This accounts for the large-margin victories we so often see. In California, 42 out of 52 congressional districts are won by 10 point margins or higher; 35 out of 52 by landslides of 20 points or higher. In effect, politicians are choosing the voters before the voters are allowed to choose them.

This reality also impacts campaign finance reform. Campaign contributors are simply responding to high incumbent re-election rates, more than causing them. Most big donors seek to buy influence, not elections. Minor parties lose elections not because of inequity in campaign contributions, they lose because they are a minority viewpoint within a majoritarian system. In a general election, the underlying partisan views of a district's voters are far more decisive than campaign spending. "Demography is destiny..."because gerrymandered districts creates such a large majority of a particular viewpoint.

Money plays a larger role in primary elections where voters are not choosing between parties, and candidates with more money can distinguish themselves from the pack. Thus, campaign finance reform can be more effective in primary elections, as well as in single-seat state-wide elections and municipal at-large elections.

The Green Party therefore proposes basic changes in the electoral system:

Public financing of elections and free media access to level the playing field for getting candidates' messages to voters.
Reject the notion that money in political campaigns is free speech, as interpreted by the Supreme Court decision in Buckley vs. Vallejo.
Hold elections on non-working days. Saturdays and Sundays are the worldwide day of choice. Holidays, such as Veterans Day, should also be considered.
Take the redistricting process away from politicians and place it under the control of elected citizen boards that represent the various partisan, civic and minority constituencies. Criteria for drawing the boundaries should be developed to make all legislative districts as competitive as possible.
The Green Party will strive to run candidates reflecting the diversity of the larger culture.
Combine voluntary campaign spending limits and public campaign funding to reduce money's corrupting influence on our political system.
Allow eligible candidates to pay postage rates one quarter of the regular rate, as well as free access to the airwaves.
Establish contribution limits for Political Action Committees (PACs) with less than 50 members to prevent wealthy people from using their funds to unduly influence elections.
Prohibit political parties from using "soft money" - transfers from other campaigns or party coffers - to pay for any election-related activities.

Other electoral reforms deserving our support in varying degrees are:

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

IRV is an important reform for single-seat races such as mayor, governor, Congress and state legislatures. IRV allows voters to rank their choices first, second, third, etc., and operates like a series of runoff elections. If a voter's first choice doesn't win, their vote transfers to their second choice, and so on. IRV allows voters to vote their conscience without "wasting" their vote on a candidate not likely to win, or being forced in to choosing between the "lesser of two evils."

None of the Above (NOTA)

NOTA can be effective in party primaries. If none of the candidates seeking the party's nomination are satisfactory, party members can vote NOTA. If NOTA wins, no candidate advances to the general election. In a general election NOTA can have mixed results. NOTA would allow voters to express their dissatisfaction with all available candidates. However, a vote for NOTA takes away the "protest votes" that would otherwise go to minor party candidates. This perpetuates the two-party monopoly by increasing their share of the total candidate-votes, further reducing the share received by minor party candidates. Also, NOTA could force a second, expensive election where the party with the most money would likely prevail.

Fusion

Under fusion, one party can endorse another party's candidate. That candidate then appears on the ballot of all parties endorsing her or him. In winner-take-all systems, fusion can help smaller parties by allowing them to unite around a single candidate and combine their strength. However, a minor party could lose its independence by fusing with a major party candidate, thus failing to provide an alternative to the major parties.

One of the primary goals of the Green Party is to change our electoral system from winner-take-all, to proportional representation (PR). PR is an over-all strategy for representation that encompasses several types of voting systems. It is used by most of the world's established democracies.

Our current winner-take-all system - where the highest vote-getter represents 100% of the electorate - causes many problems. Among them are lack of choice for voters; gross under-representation of women, and racial and political minorities; low voter turnout; issue-less campaigns; a two-party monopoly; corruption of politics by big money; and gerrymandering of legislative districts for incumbents' protection. PR addresses these issues:

PR gives representation to voters from both minority and majority constituencies. Blocs of like-minded voters win representation in multi-seat districts in proportion to their voting strength. A constituency or party that receives 10% of the vote wins 10% of the seats, 30% of the vote wins 30% of seats, and so on. This way, almost the entire electorate is represented in government, with the majority still ruling.
PR increases voter participation. More people have the ability to elect a candidate who represents them. Turnouts average 70% to 95% in PR democracies, compared to the 51% turnout in the 2000 federal elections, and the 36% turnout in 1998.
PR increases diversity in representation. Compared to the U.S. Congress, which is 88% male, women in the national and state legislatures of PR democracies often have between 25% to 50% of the seats. Racial and other minorities are also better represented under PR. This helps legislatures more closely reflect the composition of the general population.
PR is an effective campaign finance reform. It reduces the percentage of votes needed to win, thus the amount of money needed to win. Minor parties like the Green Parties of Europe consistently win fair representation despite not spending as much as the major parties.
PR also reduces the problem of gerrymandering - where incumbents and their parties get to draw district lines to their advantage. Almost all voters in a district receive representation under PR regardless of how the district lines are drawn.

PR uses multi-seat districts where representatives are elected in proportion to the votes they receive. In the implementation of PR systems, a threshold of votes is usually required to ensure that representatives have at least a minimum base of support. There are forms of PR appropriate for all levels of elections:

List systems - Party based, they elect parties in proportion to their share of the popular vote. These are the most widely used systems, and are appropriate for federal and state legislative bodies.
Mixed systems - Seats are awarded both proportionally and by single-seat districts. These do well in combining geographic and issue-based representation, and are also appropriate for federal and state legislative bodies.
Choice voting (also known as Preference voting) - Candidate-based, voters list their first, second, third, etc. choices for a particular race. Votes are transferred as candidates are eliminated, thus all votes help select the winner. Applicable to all levels of government. Choice voting was successfully used to elect city councils in two dozen U.S. cities, until the 1950's. This success led to its downfall. Political machines resented the loss of control of elections, and anti-reformers resisted diversity, especially African-Americans in government during a time of racial tension and desegregation of schools.

The Green Party seeks the implementation of proportional representation election systems:

Seek, in coalition with organizations and individuals, the formation of commissions - at local, state and federal levels - to examine alternatives to the current electoral system, and present the findings to the public.
Initiate a referendum asking voters to decide between the current winner-take-all electoral system, and a system based in PR.
Replace the winner-take-all plurality approach with proportional representation systems at all levels of government.
Work to implement PR in local organizations and non-government bodies, such as union locals, schools and school districts, civic organizations, etc.
Eliminate gerrymandering - the dominant parties' ability to create districts that ensure their continued election in the present single-seat system.
Support the federal Voters Choice Act (HR 3068) that gives states the option of electing their congressional delegation by PR (California elects 52 House members).

The state of California has had a long-standing deficit, an intractable legislature-governor interaction, a static legislature, and a public trust problem. The Green Party of California invites and intends to participate in, and have formal input into, the efforts of state electoral, state constitution, and state budget reform bodies and organizations that further the cause of proportional representation, state taxation reform, and a state bank

Budgets

Since the internet boom ended in the late 1990s, the credit rating of California has been very low. The Pew Center on the States has graded California's money management as D+, tied with Rhode Island. The only other states that use a 2/3rds Legislature majority to pass a budget are Rhode Island (D+ on the Pew Center of the States scale) and Arkansas (B-). Many believe that a minority party can obstruct the budget process to force compromises at the expense of timeliness, creating hardships for employees dependent on state monies. The 2/3rd Legislature process for the budget should be replaced by a simple majority vote.

Public trust has been drained partially due to the past history of racial discrimination in home sales before 1963 and the subsequent court battles on that topic. Trust also suffered from the property taxes during the Jerry Brown administration that begot Prop 13 in 1978 that then shrank local tax revenue and centralized authority in Sacramento. The 1988 corruption convictions for 14 lobbyists, staffers, and legislators eroded trust further to spawn term limits. The 1996 deregulation of electricity under the Wilson administration led to Gov. Davis's recall after the resultant profiteering of the energy supply companies in the face of Governor and Legislature impotence. The chronic late state Budgets are signs of a broken system that is not worthy of trust. It is time California's elected representatives and Governor worked for the good of California rather than for themselves, for the corporations, and for the preservation of the two party duopoly. GPCA proposes enlisting academic and financial expert help within state agencies. We should employ zero-based budgeting.

GPCA does not support borrowing against future California lottery money because that would transfer revenue away from public education. The lottery was originated in 1984 by a Proposition passed independent of the Legislature.

Government bonds are one of the key linchpins or siphons with which the wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations who invest in these bonds extract money from taxpayers. This perpetuates a hostile tax and economic system that punishes working people and poorer people. Since many bonds are paid over 30 to 40 years, the young pay a disproportionate amount of the bonds' total cost even though they have fewer assets and earning capacity than the older generations.

Elections

The influence of corporations in elections has subverted the democratic rights of the individual. We propose clean-money/fair-elections where state general election expenses for state candidates who have demonstrated a threshold of support equivalent to other states with clean money/fair elections rules are paid for by the state government.

The California Legislature has drawn its own election districts without public input or oversight since 2001 when the two-party duopoly conspired to minimize change to the 2001 electoral districts. In only 12 U.S. states is the legislature denied the ultimate power of its own redistricting. Just 6 states give congressional redistricting to another entity. Such an inflexible system in California has restricted grassroots democracy and weakened non-duopoly parties by discouraging voter participation at elections resulting in strengthened duopoly rule.

African Americans were first elected to the Legislature in the 1950s, with 4 Assembly Districts being represented through1974. In 1973, Republican Governor Ronald Reagan and the Democratic Party who controlled the Legislature could not agree on a political map that was required by law to be reconsidered every 10 years. Instead, the state Supreme Court appointed 3 retired judges to draw the district lines to increase Black and Latino representation in more districts.

Latino voters now constitute 19% of those registered to vote even though they will soon become the major ethnic group. The Legislature brazenly diluted the Latino vote in its 1981 redistricting, and a Supreme Court appointed panel of 3 judges in 1991 recommended changes that resulted in Latino representation increasing from 4 in 1990 to 17 in 2000. Latino representation in the State Senate also grew from 3 to 6 members in the same time frame, and their number in 2008 was 10. History has shown that the Legislature protects its incumbents' districts, whereas independent judge panels boost minority representation in the Legislature. Prop 11, which passed in November 2008, prescribed a team of 14 appointed individuals of all political stripes to draft a redistricting strategy. The 2010 passage of Prop 14 that created a "top two" runoff to the detriment of independent parties should be partially rectified by one election operated by instant runoff voting (IRV) necessitating no runoff, if multimember districts with proportional representation voting is not possible.

Proposal

The Green Party of California invites and intends to participate in, and have formal input into, the efforts of state electoral, state constitution, and state budget reform bodies and organizations that further the cause of proportional representation, state taxation reform, and a state bank.

The Green Party proposes:

A simple majority decision-making threshold in budget matters (50% of the legislators plus one, voting for approval) rather than the current 2/3rds majority. Lowering the threshold may end budget obstruction by the minority party.
When Budget disagreement occurs, the previous year's Budget should be extended until agreement is reached --but not to exceed a maximum period of 6 months.
Regular examination of spending programs by the State Treasurer to determine whether they should be revised, reduced, or discontinued. Embedded financial experts experienced in budget matters and economics in each state agency need to monitor how taxpayer money is spent.
Regular review for potential tax loopholes.
Formulation of five-year, three-year, and one-year state and state-agency budgets to expedite planning, prioritization, and budget adjustments before deficits occur. Zero-based budgeting should be encouraged.
No borrowing against future lottery receipts
Raising the money to pay for needed infrastructure and other programs on a predominantly "pay-as-we go" basis to remove the extra costs to taxpayers of issuing new state bonds
Formation of a state bank.
Electioneering for all state candidates who demonstrate in general elections a threshold of support equivalent to that in other states with clean-money/fair-elections rules, be paid for by the state of California.
Redistricting state and California congressional electoral districts using a system of multi-member districts and proportional representation. Until such policies are implemented, converting to Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in state elections would eliminate the need for costly election runoffs and partially redress the adverse effects of Proposition 14.

Definitions

Duopoly: The Democratic and Republican Parties-so named since they conspire to rule together, exclude other political parties, and accept contributions from often the same corporations and see to the interests of the latter
Pay-as-we-go: Live within one's means with no borrowing outside the state, which mortgages the finances of future generations
Zero-based budgeting: Prioritizing what services the government will continue to operate, retain, and maintain if the budget is set at zero.
Independent Parties: Political parties not beholden to, or funded by, corporations.

Update adopted: September 11, 2010

Government derives its legitimate power from the approval of the governed. If a government acts in secret, the electorate cannot give its informed consent. Any action undertaken without the people's explicit approval is undemocratic and compromises the government's legitimacy.

As we are continually discovering, many secret government actions violate the separation and limitation of powers as defined in the Constitution and refined by legislation. In the name of national security, our government frequently conceals its actions, operating on the presumption that it is acting on the people's behalf. But by acting against the citizenry's expressed will, the government is in effect denying the people representation. Worse, it carries out these activities with public funds, violating the principal that there should be no taxation without representation.

The Green Party wants to restore the government's full legitimacy:

Increase the public's access to information. Effectively implement and expand the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and make it a crime for any government official to deny or delay action on any such request, or to blot out or censor any portion of any document which is included in a FOIA request.
Establish a citizen review board to oversee the process by which the government classifies information, including the Pentagon's "black budget." Prohibit the use of phrases such as "national security" as a sufficient reason to make any governmental action, budget or plan secret.
Ensure compliance of all open-meeting laws, e.g., the "Brown Act," at every level of government for holding public hearings, procedures for informing the citizenry about upcoming government actions, citizens' rights to discuss these actions, and opportunities to do so.
Pass legislation banning secret government actions unless the public has explicitly sanctioned the goals in question. The legislation must include strict enforcement provisions to punish those responsible for illegitimate covert activities, along with ways to protect "whistle blowers" who report such activities.
Provide criminal consequences for any government official who conceals or misrepresents information under their jurisdiction from the public. Include a provision that defines such actions as "crimes and misdemeanors" as declared in the u.s. constitution to make explicit that such actions are impeachable offenses.
Keep all governmental records, including all presidential papers and recordings, in the public domain after an official leaves office.
Pass legislation removing all secrecy classifications from any governmental document that is ten years old or older.

The intelligence community's sole function should be to provide accurate and up-to-date information so that the government can make informed foreign policy decisions. We advocate strict control of intelligence agencies.

The United States operates the largest spy agency network in the world. Despite the end of the Cold War, which was allegedly the reason for creating this network, the network has continued to receive massive tax support, now approaching $100 billion per year. This network, consisting of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Council (NSC), the Department of Homeland Security (DSH) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and related agencies, along with some support from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is allegedly supposed to protect the United States and its citizens. But in fact, as the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks starkly showed, these agencies are not able or willing to perform this mission. In addition, these agencies have repeatedly been shown to conduct missions that destabilize other countries and governments and to cover up their mistakes and mislead Congress when convenient to do so. This network and its propensity for secrecy is antithetical to the ideals of a free and open democratic government.

Currently, the intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, often go beyond providing information and actively interfere in other nations' internal affairs. As instruments of the executive branch, the various intelligence agencies sometimes undertake covert military actions in blatant disregard of the constitutional provision that only the House of Representatives may declare war. These covert actions often serve no purpose other than to subvert and destabilize legitimate governments that disagree with U.S. policies. In direct violation of its charter, the CIA manipulates domestic policies through misinformation and intimidation.

The Green Party advocates strict control of intelligence agencies:

Immediately cease the practice of using intelligence agencies for industrial espionage.
The U.S. spy intelligence network and their budgets should be made more visible transparent and accountable to the public; and their operations downsized scrutinized for possible downsizing and redirected for the "post-cold war" era.
These agencies should be stripped of their ability to conduct any actions outside of surveillance and intelligence gathering, and of passing along this information along with foreign policy recommendations to Congress and other appropriate agencies.
Any subversion/destabilization actions conducted by these agencies or any of their members should be rendered as criminal acts in violation of their roles, subject to imprisonment and permanent banishment from further government office.
Heads of these agencies should be held to a standard of accountability higher than most other governmental positions for any actions that their agencies are involved in; and any abrogation of their duties should subject responsible parties to criminal penalties.
Rely more on international intelligence agencies and utilize information that has been disclosed prior by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide accurate and unbiased information as the basis for negotiations, conflict resolution and treaty verification.

Corporations have accrued legal and political privileges that have no basis in the Constitution of the United States. Under cover of these extra-constitutional privileges, corporations accumulate vast financial resources, which they use to control our political, economic, and cultural life. They achieve this control by influencing and dominating the electoral, legislative, and regulatory processes of government, using their wealth to lobby elected and appointed officials and to manage the information media, thus subverting the democratic rights of the people.

A corporation exists only when the state government grants it a charter. Originally charters were granted for the promotion of the common good, not for the exclusive good of the corporation.s owners or executives. Many corporations today have abdicated their responsibility to the common good, and by exclusively pursuing corporate wealth and power they have become severe threats to the environment, to sustainable economies, and to democracy itself. In order to return political rule to the people, corporations must be brought under local democratic control, be required to serve the common good, and be made responsive to the needs of the communities where they make, manage, and sell their products and services.

It is inappropriate for the public policy decisions that shape our communities and affect our lives to be made in private boardrooms, at closed-door regulatory agencies, or in expensive courtrooms. Public policy ought to be made by elected officials in public forums with real and meaningful participation by citizens.

With regard to corporations and accountability to the people, smaller is generally better. Smaller corporations are easier to oversee and hold accountable. Corporations should be no larger than is minimally needed to fulfill its mission. The economies of scale sought by corporations to improve their profitability work to the people's detriment when those economies of scale are applied to labor. Policies to subdivide job responsibilities to the lowest common denominator through the creation of more low-skill, low-responsibility, repetitive jobs may help a company's bottom line and improve service standardization; but they simultaneously reduce workers to a replaceable commodity and strip them of their creativity and, thus, humanity. Such jobs do not serve communities. Smaller corporations tend to require a larger proportion of higher-skill employees, which is a community benefit.

The Green Party of California intends to end corporate rule and create real democracy, where "We, the People rule. In order to achieve this goal, we acknowledge that current law and judicial decisions have clothed corporations with more rights and freedoms than those of natural human persons, allowing corporations to illegally and immorally usurp political power. We categorically reject the illegitimate granting to corporations of the legal status of "person", based erroneously upon the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway (1886). Because of this and other erosions of our Constitution, we must now reclaim our sovereign right to define corporations, not just regulate them. To achieve these ends, the Green Party of California proposes the following actions.

To prohibit corporations from usurping the exclusively human rights reserved for citizens in the Constitution and its Amendments:

Eliminate the fiction of corporate personhood, through judicial review, legislative action, or constitutional amendment.
Modify or eliminate other corporate claims to constitutional protection, in clauses such as the Interstate Commerce clause, the Contracts clause, and the Takings clause.
Prohibit any corporation doing business in the state of California from paying or contributing, or offering to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property or anything of value to any political party, committee organization or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office.

To bring corporations back into the service of local communities:

Rewrite the California corporate code to confirm that a corporation's responsibility is primarily to its workers and to the community where it operates, and to reflect the historic principle that a corporation is a public entity and must act in the public interest or have its charter revoked.
Strengthen corporate law to allow for the charter revocation or banishment from the state of corporations which are deemed contrary to the public good, or which are convicted of repeated violations of law, including activities that would normally be considered criminal for any individual to conduct.
Encourage the partitioning of all corporations, through legislated incentives, to a size that supports the highest standards of living among the local populace where the corporations operate, and encourage higher proportions of stakeholders to become shareholders by promoting worker buyouts of corporations. Provide agency powers to force such changes on any corporation that is found to be in willful or negligent violation of any public statute, policy, or law by any level of government.

To restore a more democratic system of wealth distribution:

End corporate welfare such as tax havens, subsidies, and unmonitored government contracts for corporations run for profit.
Renegotiate or abrogate international trade agreements that do not favor people-oriented, sustainable economics.
Protect and strengthen the people.s rights and control over their Commons, such as forests, water, air, radio frequencies, data formats, internet protocol, and electronic distribution, and to defend these public resources from commodification.

Last updated: 10/23/2010 (BH)