eparty's topics - tribe.net

Here's the Game Plan

markpincus — Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:24:41 GMT

my vision for the eparty is to create a web based lobby (eventually a party) where people can connect and agree on issues, rather than whole candidates. they could create soap boxes for any new issue like gun control. people could propose platform stances which can be voted on by the members of the soap box and then put forth to the whole membership. approved measures could then get funding from the eparty to lobby. individual soap boxes could raise their own money which the eparty would put towards their issues even if not approved by the whole. think moveon by the members. think bubble up politics.

posted in eparty - 3 replies

eParty tools

FXtrader — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 18:35:54 GMT

You may remember me. I used to belong to this tribe months ago. I'm back again, and this time I think I may have something you can use.

I'd like to support your goal of establishing an electronic party. To make faster progress you may want to use some tools. I'm in the process of developing Tribe voting technology. If you want to help out with beta testing, we're at http://tribevoters.tribe.net. Here's an excerpt from the development notes. I think you'll see the potential.

"You know that you can define or write in a ballot selection by simply putting two equal signs in front of the name, like ==bush or ==kerry, and if you wanted to use their full names, you'd need the equals on the other side too, like this, ==george bush== or ==john kerry==. But then everybody who votes would need to enter the whole name. Right? Not so.

"I've decided to add some extra user friendliness and smarts so once the full name selections were defined with equals on both sides of the name, the program will be smart enough to recoginze a vote for george bush as either =george or =bush and a vote for kerry could be entered as either =john or =kerry.

But if someone set up a survey like this:

==george bush==
==john kerry==
==john edwards==

"Then a vote for =john would not count towards either. But in order to keep the level of friendliness up, in the Tally Results, there would be an extra section called something like Voting Errors. If you voted for =john you name would be listed there, so you'd immediately know that your vote was not counted and why."

posted in eparty - 3 replies

Farenheit 911 - time for a revolution

markpincus — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 19:29:06 GMT

Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil

i got to see farenheit911 last night (and highly recommend it). while it was obviously disturbing to watch bush vacationing (and always tan) while iraqi women and children and young americans were getting killed and maimed, i found myself agitated on a higher level. was this really just the story of a few bad politicians?

what i really felt was that we are no longer 'governing' or consciously choosing. guys, there's nobody driving the boat. one congressman admitted that nobody he knew ever read the patriot act before voting on it. did any of you know about the 'tax reform' bill congress just passed giving $150 billion in cuts to foreign corporations? i sure didnt. did anybody know that congress has appropriated $1 billion for a new office called 'faith based initiatives'?...(read below. i was shocked.)

...By Executive Order, effective immediately, each of the following Cabinet agencies will create its own Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to work in tandem with the White House OFBCI, to make federal grants available to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives nationwide.

Cabinet Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives:
Department of Health and Human Services;
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Department of Labor;
Department of Justice; and
Department of Education.

So i have to ask you all...do you really believe anyone is steering the ship? or are we faced with a government that has moved from 'of, for and by' to 'ignored, feared and dangerous'. is the result of decades of mindless, apathetic voting for meaningless candidates a totalitarian government that can wage wars based on lies, can thrive by keeping us all in a state of fear and mistrust and encouraging us to turn in our neighbors? wow. sounds like an old communist regime. has america become the last of the command and control, centralized governments?

Do you really believe we'll end this spiral by changing to a new regime? so we all agree bush lied to us and cheney fostered a military that abused power (and people), but will switching to a kerry, a guy who has yet to take a stand on any issue, really change anything? what the hell does this statement mean...?

"I believe in an America that's strong at home and respected in the world. I believe we can have a strong economy focused on good-paying jobs, a health care plan that reduces costs, an energy plan that frees us from Mideast oil, and I believe we can lead a strong military and strong alliances that keep America safe and secure."

and this one really tells me a lot...

"John Kerry is unveiling a comprehensive economic agenda that will unleash the productive potential of America's economy to help it create 10 million jobs in his first term as President. Over the next several weeks, Kerry will unveil a series of proposals that will restore confidence in the economy and spur job creation."

Time to Democratize Democracy

i believe it's time for us to wake up and start 'owning' our government. we need a viable third political party that is about revolution over evolution, can take a real stand on issues like...

* gun control - how about no handguns ever?,
* legalizing marajuana - since half our population consumes it and has yet to be proven as addictive as cigarettes or dangerous as alcohol. (btw, i'll predict that in the next election a candidate will lie claiming they DID smoke pot),
* tort reform - the world doesnt need billionaire lawyers
* education - how about spending more on schools than prisons?
* pro economy - please dont send me another economically challenged politician who believes the answer is in raising taxes. at least clinton got that one right. all that raising taxes on the 'rich' does is push the super rich to move assets out of the US and increase the burden even further on the other 'rich', the poor shlubs who kill themselves for a salary only to send half to the local and federal government. believe me, the really rich here in california pay no state income tax. it's the poor guys who have to show up at work and cant move to incline village, NV that will pay even more until they finally wise up and leave the state. btw, 75% of all tax revenue in california comes from people making over $100k.
* religion and government - how about NOT EVER. i thought this was in the constitution somewhere. if not, can somebody add it?
* choice/abortion - duh
* corporate coruption - here's an easy one...just make them give the f'ing money back! how about saying that any insider selling during a period of accounting fraud has to return the money? hmm...gary winnick, nobody is saying you did anything illegal (we dont have the time or money to prove that) just return the $800 million to innocent investors you profited off.

posted in eparty - 0 replies

Gypsi's laughter

FXtrader — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 16:48:16 GMT

Gypsi asked me to rewrite her survey, so here it is.

If you had to choose one... which would you prefer?

==smile==
==giggle==
==chuckle==
==inner== (laugh)
==loud== (laugh)
==belly== (laugh)

My vote is for the =smile.

posted in eparty - 4 replies

vote on Gun Control

FXtrader — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:02:15 GMT

Mark says, "lets try a test. do a vote on gun control." Okay. The program is done! Lets see how this goes. Where do you stand? Tell us here in this thread... or simply vote with an = sign and one word.

Should we ban...

==assault rifles== (only assault rifles should be banned.)
==only handguns== (private citizens should not own hand guns)
==all guns== (all guns will be banned. Similar to Australia)
==none== (no ban on guns whatsoever)

Instructions: to cast a vote, simply place a SINGLE EQUAL SIGN IN FRONT of, a unique world, from one of the four selections above. Spelling counts. Here's an example:

I'll vote for no ban whatsoever, here: =none. If by chance a discussion convinces me different, my vote can changed by entering something different, such as =assault or =rifles. A vote for =assault or =riffles is the same. Either unique word counts as a vote for the ban on "assault rifles."

And lastly... in the ban of guns I say, =all.

posted in eparty - 1 reply

Same sex marriage: voice your opinion

tiffanyrose — Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:44:15 GMT

I did!
I'm not talking about doing it the same way each night either!
:-) I'm bothered that two loving people can't legally share their lives together as lawful married spouses. It was super easy for me to get hitched to a man as soon as I was of legal age (who I am now divorced from)and enjoy all the "perks" that marriage brings. Those same perks are not available to my sister and her partner, and many of our friends. As far as I am concerned Love is love, and two consenting adults should be able to share their lives together in a lawful union of marriage.

Please voice your opinion (whatever it may be) to the CA Government poll set up.

Governor Schwarzenegger has a phone poll for the electorate.

Call (916) 445-2841

On the phone tree, Press #2 for "Voice your opinion."

Press #1 for Same Sex Marriage. (Gender Neutral)

Press #1 to support gay marriage in California

posted in eparty - 0 replies

VOTE: Voting

FoundArt — Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:54:27 GMT

Proposal:

This tribe should decide its stance by voting.
Voting shall occur in this way:
1. A member (the vote caller) posts topic DISCUSS: <issue name> and states the issue.
2. The vote caller posts topic VOTE: <issue name> and states the issue.
3. Discussion should take place in the DISCUSS: <issue name> topic.
4. The only posts to the VOTE: <issue name>, other than the intro post, should be one of these words: YES NO ABSTAIN
5. Any posts to VOTE: <issue name>, other than the first post, that contain any other words will not be counted.
6. Each member can vote exactly once per topic. Any member who votes more than once will have their votes ignored for that topic.
7. The voting period is 1 week, but can be changed, of course, by a vote.

end of proposal

posted in eparty - 2 replies

Experiment in voting

FoundArt — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 04:37:57 GMT

I tried to start a voting thing. If you want to see what I'm talking about, start at the bottom post: "We need voting..."

If you want to discuss it, post to "DISCUSS: Voting"

If you want to vote on it, post your vote on VOTE: Voting.

If you think this is stupid, well, then say that in DISCUSS: Voting. ;-)

art

posted in eparty - 0 replies

DISCUSS: Voting

FoundArt — Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:53:53 GMT

posted in eparty - 0 replies

We need voting. Here's a proposal

FoundArt — Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:46:46 GMT

If this group is to do anything, we need to be able to vote.

I propose the following system.

1. Anyone interested in calling a vote starts 2 topics.
topic one: DISCUSS <issue name>
topic two: VOTE: <issue name>

In the discuss topic, the person introduces the concept and then discussion ensues.

In the vote topic there should be no discussion, just voting. The options are: YES / NO / ABSTAIN. The first post to the vote topic should be a clear statement of the issue to be voted on. The vote caller should not vote in the first post.

The reason for no discussion in the vote topic is to keep it easy to count the votes. If your post to the vote topic contains anything other than a single word indicating your vote, then it will be ignored. That sounds a bit harsh, but the goal is to keep it very, very simple to count votes. There should be no room for things like "I said all this stuff, but I meant yes." etc. If you have something to say, do it in the discuss topic.

This means all votes are public. I think that's a good thing.

art

posted in eparty - 0 replies

Invitation to join the Virtual Greens

gabriel — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:56:32 GMT

You are invited to join the Virtual Greens e-group. The purpose of this group is to become a conduit for the coordination of a national effort to support the next Green presidential campaign in "safe" states using research, e-mail, bulk mailings and long distance telephone banks. By focusing a national campaign on the "safe" states we, as a third party, would be capable of putting our efforts exactly where we have the best chances of success.
We believe that the very existence of a successful Green cyber-campaign that is aimed at "safe states" in 2004 could break the barriers of distance that have historically held back the advancement of third parties in America.

We also intend to work in support of other campaigns where the Green Party has a real chance of achieving a significant political victory, such as the Matt Gonzolez campaign in San Francisco or the IRV referendum in Alaska. We believe that with a large enough active membership base we could take advantage of our numbers nationwide to conceivably overwhelm a political opponent and thus nullify the power of big money in certain key political campaigns.

To subscribe to this e-group please send an e-mail to:
virtual_greens-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

eparty's topics - tribe.net

Here's the Game Plan

eParty tools

Farenheit 911 - time for a revolution

Gypsi's laughter

vote on Gun Control

Same sex marriage: voice your opinion

VOTE: Voting

Experiment in voting

DISCUSS: Voting

We need voting. Here's a proposal

Invitation to join the Virtual Greens

OK: so what now?