From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Candidate Accountability
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:09:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.193356.16866@bnlux1.bnl.gov>,
 kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov (christopher kushmerick) writes:
>In article <1678600002@igc.apc.org>,
> Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org> writes:
>>
>>Robert McGrath,
>>We have attempted to institutionalize this dedication to accountability
>>by mandating or instructing representatives on how to vote, and by
>>reserving the right to recall representatives should they not vote
>>as instructed.
>
>How would you go about recalling a member of congress or a president
>-- 
>Chris Kushmerick
>kushmer@bnlux1.bnl.gov

Chris,

	I can only illustrate the policies of the Green Party of California
(GPOC).  I'm unsure what the other states' Green Parties have done with their
election bylaws.  We're a highly decentralized organization, as you know.

	Under current GPOC election bylaws, it is not possible for the Party
to effect a recall on its own.  If the members of the GPOC decided that a 
Green Party elected official was so offensive or disappointing that they 
couldn't endure the rest of the official's term, then a recall as defined
in the California State Consitution would have to be undertaken.  Since the
Green Party is currently a small minority of just about any voting jurisdic-
tion that you could name, such a recall would clearly require the support of
people from other parties.  Thus, the GPOC has not (and under current law,
probably could not) obtained for itself any special powers to recall elected
officials.

	Assuming that one can stand to wait for the end of an elected offi-
cial's term, there are two options available to the Green Party.  The first
option is available to any political party; when the primary rolls around,
run a candidate in opposition to the incumbent.  If there is no candidate
strong enough to challenge the incumbent, then most political parties would
be stuck.  The GPOC, however, has one additional option that no other party
currently posesses in its bylaws; it's called "none of the above" (NOTA).
If we don't have a competitive candidate to unseat the incumbent, we can
still remove the incumbent in the primary.  In this way, the candidate is
subject to additional accountability to the Green Party.  A candidate who
wishes to run with the Greens would have a much harder time abandoning
their original constituency for some other group.

	There's another use for NOTA that was demonstrated in the 1992
election season.  Several people in the Los Angeles area entered races for
various partisan seats on behalf of the Green Party.  However, it was dis-
covered before the primary that one of these contestants was a disgruntled
member of another party who had simply registered a few dozen of his friends
with the Greens, and got them to sign his petition to enter the race as a
Green.  The local Greens found out about this intruder, but no one within 
the group felt prepared to run against him.  Thus, the group successfully
waged a NOTA campaign against him.  In this way, a candidate who did not
represent the Greens was prevented from running on their behalf.

	Some people might call NOTA a self-defeating measure.  "Don't you
want people to run for office in the Green Party?" people have asked.  For
myself, I would answer, "Yes, but I want _Greens_ to run for office."  As the
party becomes larger, and as local media begin to cover Green Party primar-
ies, I suspect that NOTA will be used less and less.  Right now, internal
communication is at a stage where a non-Green could still sneak up on one
of our smaller locals and not be noticed for a while.

	BTW, it is my understanding that the State of California filed a 
lawsuit against the GPOC which is trying to get us to remove NOTA from our 
bylaws.  The argument had something to do with the NOTA provision contri-
buting to a "disorderly election process," or something like that.  But 
let's be frank.  Nearly every voter I've spoken to has expressed the wish
to reject all the candidates for an election, and bring out a whole new
set of candidates.  Ralph Nader's Concord Principles calls for a NOTA 
provision - not just in primaries, but in general elections.  Most Greens
I know think that general-election NOTA is a pretty good idea.  Most 
incumbent politicans probably hate it.  Could it be that the State of
California is merely afraid of the precedent being set by Green Party bylaws?

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================