Loading...
 
(Cached)
Refresh Print

position protocol

(this is a process term defined in one or more on the list of process proposals - its definition is subject to validation and it may already be the subject of a process dispute? vs. the Election Readiness approach to forming GPC positions)

A true position protocol_ implies proposing and ratifying policy, i.e. legislative changes, gathering and ratifying answers to frequently asked questions (including especially answers that make it to groups or publications AFTER the election. This provides a first draft for the platform+Answers+FAQ for the NEXT election and a basis for any answer recommendation in the meantime.*

unified way to set and examine positions


A position protocol_ is a reliable uniform way for political parties to reconcile candidate with common position taking: policy, platform, Answers to Questionnaires and other very common questions from public and press, even positions that are associated with the GPC by call-in radio? participants all have potential to influence the public mind and reputation of the Party. The Party must accordingly know about as much of this public position taking as possible, if only be aware of how its message is being "spun" by candidates on the campaign trail, and find the best answers for inclusion in the Policyi FAQ? or a more formal system of answer recommendation.

The core constraint that a position protocol satisfies is "being on turf" where the GPC has chosen to be: knowing constraints, balances, feedback, cycles, and strategic timing that makes it important to solidify a given position RIGHT NOW (say for someone to reveal on a call-in radio? show even as a private citizen, quoting some recent but official Green document). THE GPC WILL LOSE TURF WITHOUT SUCH WELL COORDINATED ACTIONS. ITS MESSAGE WILL BE DILUTED by unwise use of policy terms in the wrong contexts, or a premature debate about platform proposals that the Party is not yet committed to.

three-phase process?


Several of the list of process proposals assume a robust position protocol. To integrate this, consider a three-phase process:

a. Research and compilation of alternatives proposed by allied groups and citizens, online in Living Platform and including both members and non-members/invitees of the Party's choice.

b. Live open space conferences? to "workshop" and apply any decision making means deemed appropriate to refine these options into a "policy ballot?" or "bracketed text?" version, especially those new/strategic platform points needing full membership approval. Only members participate in this.

c. mail-out or web-form - Rank a Plank gathering of feedback on this ballot, including the distribution of blank ballots to interested parties as a membership incentive (see fund protocol? .

The draft GPNS position protocol (a GPNS protocol ) proposes ONE BALLOT LETTING ALL MEMBERS CHOOSE POLICY DIRECTIONS, AND ELECT OFFICERS, THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO READ EVERY SINGLE LINE OF LEGISLATIVELY-WRITTEN POLICY RESOLUTIONS OR ATTEND ANY PARTICULAR MEETING OR USE THE INTERNET AT ALL. If the GPC and GPNS have some elements of this protocol in common, so much the better.

control press


Regardless of how positions are arrived at, they influence the press protocol - release/response: how media inquiries are handled, how press/ news releases are drafted, who reviews them and on what timelines, how long-term strategic priorities of the Party and key non-candidates, i.e. legislators are consulted. At this interface a position protocol_ and press protocol_ approach will depart radically from the "Election Readiness" approach which combines these unwisely with the election protocol mandated mostly by the constraints of a writ drop? and the federal election period. A CLEAR CHOICE MUST BE MADE BETWEEN THESE APPROACHES: EITHER CENTRALIZE POWER WITH ONE SMALL GROUP, *OR* DIVIDE IT PROPERLY INTO THREE PROTOCOLS.

It should go without saying that if the position protocol is being invoked ONLY AFTER A PRESS RELEASE IS RELEASED, there is no integrity whatsoever to the Party's policy or press handling.

backcast


  • Any effort to backcast to fixed time horizons in decision making about positions should be geared to exploit these high-commitment high-visibility answers and should reset itself based on the actual timing between real elections. That is, if one is setting positions for the 2008-2012 time period and there is a surprise election in 2009, the planning horizons must be adjusted so that they fall as close to anticipated elections as possible. Intervals between the horizons will fill the gaps. So



Show php error messages