[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor

Fri Feb 16 17:18:25 PST 2018

Erik,

I agree that the Green Party's  organizational capabilities far exceed that
of what has been realized to date; it would be highly beneficial to our
movement to have a state level party with the resources to credibly engage
in the public sphere. That said, I don't see why this requires us to pick
and choose among credible candidates for statewide public office. Taking a
neutral position of endorsing all qualified candidates does not prevent the
party from vigorously promoting, encouraging votes, or donations to our
candidate(s).

It also puts the state party in the position of being at odds with our
leading candidate. If we endorse one candidate, and another winds up
earning far more votes for whatever reason, the state party is going to
look foolish (at best).

That said, if we had a formal, grassroots process including a series of
debates and appearances by candidates across the state, analogous to what
the GPUS attempts to do with the Presidential nomination, that would be
different.

Newer folks might not realize this, but the SGA and the centralization of
decision making power at the state level is a relatively new thing. It used
to be the case that policy decisions were made in a decentralized fashion
via direct democracy at the local level: proposals would be circulated to
recognized county level locals, considered at monthly local Green Assembly
meetings conducted via consensus with fallback to super majority votes as
defined by local rules, then considered adopted once a sufficient number of
locals had endorsed them.

This process properly enshrined decision making power in the locals, in
"the body of the whole" and ensured that all active participants in the
Green Party were aware of, and engaged in, the policy making process, and
that the state level organization was properly accountable to the locals as
the source of institutional authority. No SGA was required.

This process, by the way, also fostered a vibrant and active statewide
Green Party that regularly produced relative successful candidacies such as
the Camejo campaigns, Laura Wells' record breaking campaign for state
controller, etc.

Thomas Leavitt

On Feb 16, 2018 4:27 PM, "Erik" <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> wrote:

GPCA could be a fundraising power house that sends out thousands of
donation asks and puts on events for candidates. I am not willing to accept
GPCA in its current state of do nothingness. If we aren’t helping our
candidates win then why do we even have a state party? The point is being
missed by many in this thread. Our Primaries were taken from us by
capitalists that wanted to limit their competition in General Elections.
Our response has been to do nothing and make no preparations to organize
prior to the primaries. The “Primaries” are our new “General Election” and
we need to start treating it as such because if we don’t get into the Top
Two the election cycle is over for us. We need a pre-primary process to
organize otherwise we will continue to lose even when we have great
candidates because our state party doesn’t lift a finger to help them. This
is bigger than the 2018 Elections. We need this process for the future if
we want to win statewide elections. I am going to do everything in my power
to turn this party into a functioning political party that actually wins
state seats. We’ve proven we can win on the local level. It’s time to step
our game up and change with the modern times. Doing nothing as a state
party is the worst thing we can do.

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:43 PM james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com> wrote:

> Also note, that several candidates had been putting out the word since
> last year, building networks, campaigning, strategizing etc. Do you have
> any policy ideas? Maybe you and Feinstein should have a public debate prior
> to any vote on endorsement takes place? I would love to help facilitate one
> here in Sacramento if the two of you are up for it.
>
> To claim that people haven't been doing work, just because they haven't
> done it for you is disingenuous, and ignores the teamwork it took to get
> these candidates in the ballot. Instead of putting candidates against each
> other, why not support each other, as I'm seeing several candidates doing?
>
> Further such a process should have been done prior to candidates getting
> their names on the ballot. Once there they are there. There's no changing
> that, thus making this process meaningless. Not to mention having a small
> group of deligated decide for the party who will run violates the value of
> decentralization.
>
> My big question though, if splitting the vote is such a concern, why are
> late to the game candidates trying for offices we already have candidates
> for??
>
> On Feb 16, 2018 2:36 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had
>> already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on
>> those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green
>> values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one
>>> candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further,
>>> whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards
>>> of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of
>>> them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party
>>> can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council
>>> candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual
>>> basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last
>>> year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year
>>> (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial
>>> support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be
>>> able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our
>>> endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could
>>> somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small
>>> percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even
>>> spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach
>>> a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of
>>> Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to
>>> vote for our candidates.
>>>
>>> Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any
>>> one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up
>>> and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me
>>> that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had
>>> two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1%
>>> of the vote, for any such office...
>>>
>>> If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal
>>> divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish?
>>> Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking
>>> to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against
>>> our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run
>>> were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme
>>> cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and
>>> moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the
>>> representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is,
>>> as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have
>>> less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
>>>
>>> It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to
>>> talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of
>>> strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide
>>> campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why
>>> should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks
>>> supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on
>>> how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion
>>> about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays
>>> and backroom deals, etc.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Thomas Leavitt
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <
>>> chefkrzywicki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right?   Doesn’t
>>>> having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anthony & Others,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree that this process should have been started at least six months
>>>>> ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work
>>>>> to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green
>>>>> candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point,
>>>>> actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates
>>>>> reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits
>>>>> by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms
>>>>> which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is
>>>>> useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win
>>>>> it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely
>>>>> disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to
>>>>> so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which
>>>>> compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering
>>>>> has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we
>>>>> should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than
>>>>> we really do.
>>>>>
>>>>> There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly
>>>>> supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not
>>>>> reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive"
>>>>> democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP
>>>>> moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to
>>>>> a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that
>>>>> we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve
>>>>> their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their
>>>>> values.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this
>>>>> point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is
>>>>> proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Nicole Castor
>>>>> GP Sacramento County
>>>>> On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base.  We
>>>>>> need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out
>>>>>> and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats.
>>>>>> Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point?  We have a
>>>>>> such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split
>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so
>>>>>> we could already be backing a unified candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One major concern is that this process would take power out of the
>>>>>>> voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It
>>>>>>> seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote
>>>>>>> for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the
>>>>>>> ballot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some
>>>>>>>> time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <
>>>>>>>> jmc at sfgreens.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow
>>>>>>>>> through with
>>>>>>>>> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a
>>>>>>>>> process it
>>>>>>>>> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot
>>>>>>>>> access
>>>>>>>>> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and
>>>>>>>>> division,
>>>>>>>>> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot?  If
>>>>>>>>> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in
>>>>>>>>> and who is out.  I agree that we should not make an endorsement
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about
>>>>>>>>> all the Green candidates running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JMC
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc at sfgreens.org)
>>>>>>>>> http://sfgreens.org/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Anthony J. Krzywicki,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-coordinator Ventura
>>>>>> County Green Party County Council*
>>>>>> www.venturacountygreenparty.com
>>>>>> greenpartyvc at gmail.com
>>>>>> instagram: greenpartyvcc
>>>>>> facebook group: Ventura Green Party
>>>>>> facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our
>>>>>> daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to
>>>>>> desist from harming them. *
>>>>>> -Dali Lama
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Anthony J. Krzywicki,
>>>>
>>>> *Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-coordinator Ventura
>>>> County Green Party County Council*
>>>> www.venturacountygreenparty.com
>>>> greenpartyvc at gmail.com
>>>> instagram: greenpartyvcc
>>>> facebook group: Ventura Green Party
>>>> facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
>>>>
>>>> *It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our
>>>> daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to
>>>> desist from harming them. *
>>>> -Dali Lama
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>
>>> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
-- 

*Erik Rydberg *

*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*

*erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com>530-781-2903
<(530)%20781-2903>*

                cagreens.org

--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180216/85a443e9/attachment.html>