For Green Party V.P. in 2008: Rebecca Rotzler
We at the Draft Rotzler web-site truly hoped we could convince Rebecca Rotzler to run for President. A variety of things seemed to have gotten in the way.
Leader and supporter that she is, Rebecca Rotzler was a point person for two successful green activists who won seats on the local school board during two different campaigns. And, because Rebecca Rotzler is supportive of other women candidates, she has been involved in various activities to support another woman, green presidential candidate.
We at Draft Rotzler think it is Rebecca’s time to shine again, and her time to be supported.
Hope you will promote the idea of Rebecca Rotzler for Vice Presidential candidate on the Green Party Presidential ticket in 2008.
Rebecca Rotzler’s Bio:
Rebecca Rotzler is a former Co-Chair of the Green Party of the United States. Rebecca has participated in events such as the World Can’t Wait “Impeach Bush” and the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute Conference: A North American Labor Assembly on Climate Crisis: Building a Global Movement for Clean Energy.
As Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, Rebecca Rotzler has already shown the world the green way to run a village: environmental improvements, social and economic justice, and the joy of politics. Rebecca Rotzler’s name was floated to run for President in 2008. There is a Wikipedia entry about Rebecca Rotzler and her accomplishments which lists her as a 2008 presidential contender. Because Rebecca Rotzler is supporting another woman, green presidential candidate, we hope Rebecca Rotzler would consider the Vice Presidential slot.
Web-site designed and maintained with volunteer labor.
Web-address donated by C. Dulai
September 26, 2006 at 12:06 am
The Green Party has made a mistake by endorsing Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).
It is a mistake because (contrary to naive impressions and propaganda)
IRV just leads to self-reinforcing 2-party domination, just like now.
Which is why Australia, Ireland, and Malta are 2-party dominated.
Why the Greens never bothered to examine the only 3 IRV-voting
countries in the world before making their imbecilic endorsement, is beyond me. It is a suicidal mistake because the Green Party has no chance, and never will have a chance, under voting systems with that (”Duverger’s law”) property.
The voting system the Greens and all third parties should want, is
RANGE VOTING. It is simpler than IRV. It runs on today’s voting machines (IRV does not for many machines). A yardstick called “Bayesian Regret” finds
that range votign is robustly superior to all
commonly proposed votign methods.
Range Voting experimentally leads to vastly more
votes for Greens. Our exit poll in 2004 showed Nader would have got
approximately half the vote count Kerry & Bush each got, if we had
used range voting, i.e. about 80 times larger than Nader actually DID get
under plurality voting. That (factor 80 handicap) is what you Greens
are suffering by living in a country that uses the undemocratic plurality
system of voting rather than range voting.
Do you like political suicide? Do you have a death wish?
Can you think of any other politician, ever, who intentionally tried to
get 80 times fewer votes?
If not, I suggest you support range voting. You can learn vastly
more about it from the Center for Range Voting website
http://rangevoting.org . You can then ENDORSE range voting by
clicking ENDORSE on that web page (top) and filling out the form
that then appears. I want the Green Party to party-endorse range voting
instead of IRV asap, but so far have been unable to reach GP leaders,
so they continue on in blissful ignorance.
We’ll see if this attempt gets dumped into the electronic garbage like
all my others.
Warren D. Smith
co-founder
Center for Range Voting
631-675-6128
October 21, 2006 at 7:03 pm
From: http://gregg-jocoy.blogspot.com/2006/05/in-defense-of-rebecca-rotzler.html
In an email to the National Committee, Ms. Rotzler, a national party co-chair and elected Green in New Paltz NY wrote:
Steve and I were in communication prior to his switch in order to run in the dem primary which was an excellent idea, in my opinion. If we would have communicated further I would have advised, rather, insisted against any comment regarding the green party regardless of how he felt at the time as I know perfectly well that the corporate press with their backroom democrats would eat it up and that would become the focus, not his run against a woman whom I cannot believe can be a mother to a child and agree to war. Nothing against any men, Steve is a wonderful father (as is Sander from what I have seen) and I know that adds to his motivation, that is just my opinion as a mother. I am also against negative campaigning, period. It tends to bite you where it becomes difficult to sit down. Steve has admitted that he erred, we are a party of peace therefore further a public whipping is not in order, I suggest punching a wall or a board placed between two cinder blocks(you will look cooler and it will hurt less) to vent the frustration and anger. Can we accept his apology, let it be, and get back to doing what we can to get people elected and put a stop to this war?
Rebecca R.
Just a thought- everything a candidate does and says is public information in a national election. (Don’t blame politics- the Green party has no problem pointing out the foibles and missteps of Dem. and Rep. candidates. ) But think about the credibility of the Green Party as a whole- does this type of impulsive, incoherent writing ACCURATELY portray the Green Party’s philosophy and mission?