Good Morning Grassroots!

Good Morning Grassroots with John Wren live at 10 a.m. Mountain, 9 Pacific,  available for worldwide syndication. 

Check it out now: www.Facebook.com/John.S.Wren 

Caucus is an American word.

...And so it turns out that CAUCUS is a truly American word, properly borrowed by immigrants from natives, a democratic word in a time when a working democracy was not yet even a working idea. This was a term which the American republic of the early l9th century was quick to turn into political operation and would never relinquish as useless or obsolete. It may be that the present caucus as precursor for part elections is not necessary, but the notion that discussion on every level is profitable, is in the end quite necessary, and a good safeguard against voting rights being hurried through the polls without sufficient warning. The right to associate and discuss is at the heart of any democratic process, and if do we end up associating overly and talking endlessly, that will be the price of democracy, and the inefficient minor segment of a larger process which does by its essence and importance require endless talk and endless consideration.

William Harris
Prof. Em. Middlebury College
www.middlebury.edu/~harris

http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/caucus.html

Study Group Saturday.

Colorado Elections Study Group starts this Saturday, Colorado Capitol, 1 to 3 p.m. For more informations see: http://www.coloradoindependent.com/159412/group-explores-shifting-colorado-to-a-presidential-primary

Are Unaffiliated voters transpoliticals? Are they are more objective? No!

We can register as a Republican or as a Democrat  if we want to make a real difference. (May be more major parties in the future, not the real issue right now.)

What does it really mean when someone says they are unaffiliated or a political independent?

 Excellent talk by THE expert on this question, head of Government department at Harvard. Very much worth watching and sharing with others online:

Caucuses aren't for ciphers by Sue O'Brien

My friend Sue O'Brien wrote this when our wonderful Colorado Caucus, our neighborhood system for nominating candidates to the primary ballot, was in danger of being killed by Amendment 29. Partly because of Sue's and The Denver Post's strong support of the Colorado Caucus, the misguided Amendment 29 was defeated.

Sue's wonderful column is still very much worth reading as a reminder of why the caucus-assembly system is worth preserving, warts and all. Please share it with your friends. 

Caucuses aren't for ciphers
Denver Post Editorial Page, October 6, 2002
by Sue O'Brien

cipher - a person or thing of no importance or value; nonentity

It takes a village...

New service to turn your neighborhood into a real village. Watch this: Yesterday's (Fri, 4/28) Startup Show, on Colorado Caucus.

Release: Save the Caucus Calls for Colorado Chairs of Dems, GOP to Resign.

John S. Wren, Registered Agent for

Save the Caucus, 

Registered Colorado Political Committee

1881 Buchtel Blvd. #501, Denver, CO 80210

www.JohnWren.com  (303)861-1447

For more: John Wren

(720)495-4949

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 3, 2016

Save the Caucus Calls for Colorado Chairs of Dems, GOP to Resign.

Tuesday’s statewide Colorado Caucus fiasco blamed on their bad leadership. 

DENVER__ “As I said before Tuesday, being a citizen rather than a subject requires participation, and the Colorado Caucus allows that,” John Wren, registered agent for Save the Caucus, a Colorado political committee said today., “but it requires good leadership.

“The leadership of both major political parties failed Colorado Tuesday, and those who publicly called for our wonderful grassroots institution, the Colorado Caucus, to be AstroTurfed with the Borg-like Presidential Primary should resign, starting with the Colorado Chairs for both major parties who were seen in the media over the weekend doing just that. 

“If the two state chairs don’t apologize and immediately resign, removal should be the first order of business at every county convention and, if they aren’t out by then, at the state conventions. 

“As Sue O’Brien, editorial page editor of the Denver Post when they endorsed the Colorado Caucus in 2002, said ‘We’re systematically replacing ‘social capital’ with plain old monetary capital (paid workers, ads of Presidential Primary). Colorado’s traditional caucus-convention system, in contrast, rewards the shoe-leather and diligence. It provides a low-cost way for aspirants to work the neighborhoods, investing energy instead of dollars.' We all miss Sue's great wisdom and common sense," said Wren.

Wren concluded, “The well organized precinct caucus  is a moderating force. Critics of caucuses say it creates radicalization, but the opposite is true. Neighbors get together with each other, and realize the people they share their votes with are real human beings with similar life struggles, experiences and desires. But it requires good leadership. Tuesday that leadership was missing for  Republicans or the Democrats here in Colorado. And then those trusted to lead blame the system. Outrageous!”  For more see www.COCaucus.org or call John Wren at (303)861-1447.

###

The original Save the Caucus was formed by John Wren, Ruth Prendergast, JoAnne Gray, Polly Baca, Daryle Eskin, Phil Perington, Frank Sullivan, Bill Armstrong, and others in 2002 to fight Amendment 29 which would have killed the grassroots system. Those  with questions are invited to contact Wren at (303)861-1447 or write John Wren, Save the Caucus, 1881 Buchtel Blvd. #501, Denver, CO 80210. www.COCaucus.org 

Caucus vs Primary War of Words

This was posted on Wikipedia article "Colorado Caucus" to explain variation from Iowa Caucuses:

In Colorado the accepted usage has been Colorado Caucus rather than Colorado caucuses. In 2000 a committee was formed to fight Amendment 29. It was called Save the Caucus, not Save the caucuses. Making the term descriptive of the event rather than a title is a way to disparage the process. Look at the Iowas caucuses article, link in the first paragraph to 2008 front page of Iowa paper that uses Iowa Caucus. Search newspapers, it's clear this is an effort to demean states that have been loyal to this grassroots system. Watch for article soon on Colorado Caucus News <nowiki>http://Facebook.com/Colorado.Caucus.News 

Caucuses aren't for ciphers. Sue O'Brien.

Sue O'Brien wrote in this editorial in 2002 when our wonderful Colorado Caucus, our neighborhood system for nominating candidates to the primary ballot was in danger of being eliminated by Amendment 29. Partly because of Sue's and The Denver Post's strong support of the Colorado Caucus, the misguided Amendment 29 was defeated.

Sue's wonderful column is maybe the best writing that's ever been done about why the caucus-assembly system is worth preserving. Here's what Sue wrote in the Denver Post:

Caucuses aren't for ciphers
October 6, 2002
by Sue O'Brien

cipher - a person or thing of no importance or value; nonentity

- New World College Dictionary

So, what will we choose to be: ciphers or individuals?

Ciphers are faceless. They have value only as something to count - a signature on a petition or a vote to tally by machine. It's easy for ciphers to hide out. Hey, they're just part of the mob.

Individuals, by contrast, stand out. They take responsibility. And they rarely hide.

We have a sovereign opportunity to become ciphers this November. One of the few mechanisms left in modern politics that rewards individual initiative - the precinct caucus - is on the brink of being eliminated in favor of a political nominating system that would let wannabe candidates get on the ballot only by collecting - and counting - petition signatures.

It's a lousy proposal put forth by an otherwise admirable organization: the Bighorn Center for Public Policy.

Now, I have nothing against getting on the ballot by petition. But why eliminate the choice - caucus or petition - that our present system provides?

It's not as though there's something inherently wrong with the caucus. And, even though these grassroots conclaves have seen declining attendance in recent years, there's a lot inherently good about them.

Look around modern society. We have a woeful lack of what Harvard scholar Robert Putnam calls "social capital" - the dynamism that comes from doing things together and making community decisions together. Yet the spate of election "reforms" we're seeing these days almost seems designed to stomp out the last vestiges of community collaboration.

"Voting and following politics are relatively undemanding forms of participation," writes Putnam in his influential "Bowling Alone." "In fact, they are not, strictly speaking, forms of social capital at all, because they can be done utterly alone."

We can be utterly alone, too, when we perform the two other actions modern politics seems to want to limit us to: writing checks and watching attack ads on TV. We're systematically replacing "social capital" with plain old monetary capital.

Colorado's traditional caucus-convention system, in contrast, rewards the shoe-leather and diligence. It provides a low-cost way for aspirants to work the neighborhoods, investing energy instead of dollars. Recent proof of this pudding came in the race for the GOP nomination in the 7th Congressional District, where Rick O'Donnell captured first line on the primary ballot with a low-budget campaign that focused on traditional caucus and door-to-door campaigning. O'Donnell eventually lost the primary to the better-funded Bob Beauprez, but his achievement in getting on the ballot was impressive.

But even more important than the caucus' benefits for candidates is its benefit for ordinary citizens. It's a vibrant neighborhood forum for hashing out ideas - the last remaining arena in which you can get on the first rung of the ladder toward political effectiveness by just showing up.

I've covered precinct or town caucuses in Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Mississippi as well as Colorado. My favorite memory is of escorting a big-deal network analyst to his very first caucus in an American Legion hall in Iowa. This was a political expert well into his 50s, yet he'd never seen a caucus; primaries had always been his beat. He was blown away. For the first time in years of covering politics, he told me, he'd seen the true face of America.

He was right. Caucuses offer a peculiarly intimate view of a community and its people. They'll amaze you with the quality of caring and thought participants bring to the discussion. And sometimes, if you're very lucky, you'll see new, young leaders find their first toehold in the process.

Why is the Colorado caucus withering? First, because the legislature, in an ineffectual grab for national headlines, created a meaningless presidential primary that eliminated the headline race that once inspired much caucus activism.

Second, because we're all getting good at sitting on the sidelines. The Kettering Foundation's David Mathews once reminded readers that the word idiot comes from the Greeks. Privacy, they thought, was akin to stupidity. "Idiots" were incapable of finding their place in the social order.

Why bow to the trend of letting the next guy do it? Why sell out to letting money replace shoe-leather at every level of American politics?

Why not keep the caucus as an open door to involvement, while continuing to provide the petition alternative? Bighorn's goal may be to increase the number of people peripherally involved in the process - but the initiative will never replace the quality of participation the caucus can provide.

Good political talk … is where we recognize the connectedness of things - and our own connectedness. … Good political talk is also where we discover what is common amidst our differences. -David Mathews, "Civic Intelligence"

Sue O'Brien was editor of the Denver Post editorial page. See passed on not long after writing this. 

Tomorrow I'll be back with more about how I first became an Active Citizen and how you can be one too if you're not already.

In the mean time, your feed back is very helpful. Post your questions and comments here or contact me directly. (303)861-1447 or http://www.JohnWren.com 

Please share this with your friends on the Internet, it's as easy as just pushing one of the buttons below for Facebook, Twitter, Blogger.com, etc. 

John S. Wren

(303)861-1447

How do I find my precient caucus for March 4?

•  

Voting in a precienct caucus in 2012.
Denver Post.

Where is my precinct caucus?

No one has created a caucus locator for Colorado like the ones that are avilable now in other states. So check your major party website, follow the links, call them if you can't get the job done on your own. 

Republicans: www.cologop.org 

Democrats: www.coloradodems.org 

You can find your precinct on your voter record at www.govotecolorado.com, or if in Denver, call 311. Click on the “View my Voter Registration Status” link to see your precinct and political districts. To access your voter information, you must enter your name, date of birth and zip code. The last three numbers of the 10 digit ID number indicate your precinct number.

Registered voters who have been affiliated with the Republican or Democratic parties for at least 60 days prior to the caucuses, and who have resided in their precinct for at least 30 days.

Anyone is welcome to attend the caucus, but must be registered with the Democratic Party, Republican Party in their precinct in order to vote in the caucus.

Exception: If you turn 18 or become a U.S. citizen during the two-month period prior to the caucuses AND register to vote prior to the day of the caucuses, you may participate in the caucuses of the party you affiliated with when you registered.

Neighborhood representative wanted for new project.

I just posted this on www.JohnWren.com. Will you help? Call me! John Wren (303)861-1447 

For years I've had an interest in the Colorado caucus-assembly system for nominating to the primary ballot, in my opinion the best chance the common person has for serving in elected public office. See http://www.COCaucus.org 

Here's a new idea. Let's created a new business, doing well by doing good, with grassroots civic education and a Welcome Wagon type neighborhood marketing network. 

Let's write a handbook for Colorado citizens, update every year, sell to newcomers through a network of neighborhood representatives who will welcome newcomers and be the hub for neighborhood communications.

The citizen handbook will cover the caucus system, referendum , recall and initiatives, as well as how to get elected to public office. 

If you'd be interested in being part of this project as a sponsor, neighborhood representative, writer, or advertiser, contact me via John@JohnWren.com or (303)861-1447 see http://Facebook.com/goodNeighborsWeVote PLEASE SHARE 

My friend Sue O'Brien wrote in this editorial in 2002 when our wonderful Colorado Caucus, our neighborhood system for nominating candidates to the primary ballot, was in danger of being killed by Amendment 29. Partly because of Sue's and The Denver Post's strong support of the Colorado Caucus, the misguided Amendment 29 was defeated.

Sue's wonderful column is still very much worth reading as a reminder of why the caucus-assembly system is worth preserving, warts and all. I hope someone forwards a copy of this to the Republican National Committee, which is considering whether or not to ban the caucus as a way to pick the delegates who nominate the RNC's Presidential candidate.  Here's what Sue wrote in the Denver Post:

Caucuses aren't for ciphers
October 6, 2002
by Sue O'Brien

cipher - a person or thing of no importance or value; nonentity

- New World College Dictionary

So, what will we choose to be: ciphers or individuals?

Ciphers are faceless. They have value only as something to count - a signature on a petition or a vote to tally by machine. It's easy for ciphers to hide out. Hey, they're just part of the mob.

Individuals, by contrast, stand out. They take responsibility. And they rarely hide.

We have a sovereign opportunity to become ciphers this November. One of the few mechanisms left in modern politics that rewards individual initiative - the precinct caucus - is on the brink of being eliminated in favor of a political nominating system that would let wannabe candidates get on the ballot only by collecting - and counting - petition signatures.

It's a lousy proposal put forth by an otherwise admirable organization: the Bighorn Center for Public Policy.

Now, I have nothing against getting on the ballot by petition. But why eliminate the choice - caucus or petition - that our present system provides?

It's not as though there's something inherently wrong with the caucus. And, even though these grassroots conclaves have seen declining attendance in recent years, there's a lot inherently good about them.

Look around modern society. We have a woeful lack of what Harvard scholar Robert Putnam calls "social capital" - the dynamism that comes from doing things together and making community decisions together. Yet the spate of election "reforms" we're seeing these days almost seems designed to stomp out the last vestiges of community collaboration.

"Voting and following politics are relatively undemanding forms of participation," writes Putnam in his influential "Bowling Alone." "In fact, they are not, strictly speaking, forms of social capital at all, because they can be done utterly alone."

We can be utterly alone, too, when we perform the two other actions modern politics seems to want to limit us to: writing checks and watching attack ads on TV. We're systematically replacing "social capital" with plain old monetary capital.

Colorado's traditional caucus-convention system, in contrast, rewards the shoe-leather and diligence. It provides a low-cost way for aspirants to work the neighborhoods, investing energy instead of dollars. Recent proof of this pudding came in the race for the GOP nomination in the 7th Congressional District, where Rick O'Donnell captured first line on the primary ballot with a low-budget campaign that focused on traditional caucus and door-to-door campaigning. O'Donnell eventually lost the primary to the better-funded Bob Beauprez, but his achievement in getting on the ballot was impressive.

But even more important than the caucus' benefits for candidates is its benefit for ordinary citizens. It's a vibrant neighborhood forum for hashing out ideas - the last remaining arena in which you can get on the first rung of the ladder toward political effectiveness by just showing up.

I've covered precinct or town caucuses in Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Mississippi as well as Colorado. My favorite memory is of escorting a big-deal network analyst to his very first caucus in an American Legion hall in Iowa. This was a political expert well into his 50s, yet he'd never seen a caucus; primaries had always been his beat. He was blown away. For the first time in years of covering politics, he told me, he'd seen the true face of America.

He was right. Caucuses offer a peculiarly intimate view of a community and its people. They'll amaze you with the quality of caring and thought participants bring to the discussion. And sometimes, if you're very lucky, you'll see new, young leaders find their first toehold in the process.

Why is the Colorado caucus withering? First, because the legislature, in an ineffectual grab for national headlines, created a meaningless presidential primary that eliminated the headline race that once inspired much caucus activism.

Second, because we're all getting good at sitting on the sidelines. The Kettering Foundation's David Mathews once reminded readers that the word idiot comes from the Greeks. Privacy, they thought, was akin to stupidity. "Idiots" were incapable of finding their place in the social order.

Why bow to the trend of letting the next guy do it? Why sell out to letting money replace shoe-leather at every level of American politics?

Why not keep the caucus as an open door to involvement, while continuing to provide the petition alternative? Bighorn's goal may be to increase the number of people peripherally involved in the process - but the initiative will never replace the quality of participation the caucus can provide.

Good political talk … is where we recognize the connectedness of things - and our own connectedness. … Good political talk is also where we discover what is common amidst our differences. -David Mathews, "Civic Intelligence"

Sue O'Brien was editor of the Denver Post editorial page.

 A Powerful Tool for Advancing Your Political Agenda

There are many reasons to participate in your neighborhood caucus aside from participating in the selection of your party's candidate for President.

Most important is the selection of delegates who will select local candidates.

Another reason to attend your caucus, one that is almost never discussed in the media, is to put forward resolutions that can be adopted at county, state, and even the national convention for one of the major political parties.

The caucus resolution is sort of a suggestion box on steroids. What the caucus passes is reviewed by the county resolutions committee. Resolutions that have broad support as demonstrated by being adopted by many of the caucuses, or for any other reason that the committee sees as sufficient, are put before the delegates at the county assembly. Those adopted by the counties are then considered by the state resolutions committee, and may be put before the voters at the state assembly. The process is then repeated at the national level. At each level there can be discussion, debate, and promotion of the idea in various ways such at advertising, distribution of fliers to delegates, workshops, etc.

I've never seen this resolution process discussed in-depth in the popular media, just one of the reasons caucus attendance is so low.

Here's an explanation by one special interest group you may find useful:  http://archive.fairvote.org/index.php?page=2191

What resolutions do you think will come up in the March 6 Colorado Caucus? (Yes, it will be mostly Democrats that gather since they are the only ones that vote, but by Colorado Law these are open public meetings, and anyone could put forward a resolution.)

Have you ever put forward a resolution? Do you think it made a difference? Your comment here would be very much appreciated. And please forward this along to any of your friends who you know have had experience using this tool to achieve their political purpose.

Yesterday I was asked what I was advocating beyond caucus attendance, when I ask for response to the Washington Post article about the Republican National Committee considering elimination of the neighborhood caucus in the selection of Presidential delegates in the few states that still use the system. (See my previous post, hope you'll comment as requested in yellow highlight.)


Here is the answer I just sent her:

I just woke with your question on my mind, Andrea,

Seems to me our representative system of self government works best when there is friendly competition between neighbors, both major political parties trying to outdo the other in community building, and from that there is the best chance that everything else will get worked out to the benefit of all.

I just read this, and it sums up what I'm advocating for from my friends in both major parties, as together we all build our community: "There are obstacles in the path of community life, and they have to be fought against. For example, that sort of "gossip" that creates bewilderment and prejudices, that extinguishes trust, that does not "speak well" (bene dicere) about others. Before speaking or criticizing, we must ask ourselves about the basis, the usefulness and worth of our words. All murmuring, all harmful speech must be avoided. We have to insist on what unites us, on the work of our group, on our aims, on mutual trust. ...It is in community that we live united, of one heart and mind." Prior General, Fra Ángel M. Ruiz Garnica

Washington Post reports that the caucus-assembly system for nominating to the primary ballot is under attack by the Republican National Committee.

Not surprising.

The rich and powerful hate the system. They are who was behind the 2002 Amendment 29 here in Colorado that would have killed it for us.

But this attack can be stopped.

Back in 2002 a few of us banded together and formed Save the Caucus. Despite being outspend 1400 to 1, it was defeated 60% to 40%

You can help NOW. Post a comment here supporting our Colorado Caucus and/or the caucus system in general. Then share this page with your friends and encourage them to come here and do the same thing.

If enough show there support here, maybe we can stop this misguided effort in it's tracks.

Thanks for your help!

John Wren
Publisher, COCaucus.org and Facebook.com/Colorado.Caucus.News
Questions? Call me at (303)861-1447