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

[Thomas Leavitt]

Eric,

First and foremost, if somehow, we are so organizationally incapable that
we manage to fail to maintain our ballot status based on registration
alone, we are seriously, seriously, seriously doing something very wrong.
We should never have to depend on any one single candidate gaining over 2%
of the vote to retain our ballot status. Not being able to maintain 1/3rd
of 1% of the total registered voters would be dramatic and compelling
evidence of catastrophic incompetence on a collective basis by us as
"leaders" in the party.

Secondly, as can be seen from the SOS web site below, and as I stated
previously, in every election, we have 7 or 8 possible ballot lines through
which we have the opportunity to gain that 2% of the statewide vote and
retain our ballot status. Doing it via a candidate that runs for Controller
or Insurance Commissioner is no less valid than doing it via whatever
candidate runs for Governor. Again, if we are unable, in any of these
races, to field a candidate capable of pulling 2% of the statewide vote,
given our historic results, catastrophic incompetence would be a generous
description of the situation. It would represent a historic reversal from
the previous election, where down ballot, our female candidates (who tend
to run a point or two better than our male candidates for equivalent
offices, historically) for Treasurer and Comptroller pulled 6.5% and 5.6%,
respectively, of the vote.

To me, this makes it clear that meeting the 2% threshold is not a
substantive and credible argument for endorsement of candidates. The
decision needs to stand on its own merits as a tool for building the party.

Finally, the current system of maintaining qualified status via statewide
vote was established when all parties were able to ensure that a single
designated candidate was present on the fall general election ballot. It is
constitutionally suspect in an environment where minority parties have no
influence over who runs on their ballot line, or how many candidates run
and potentially split the vote. It is entirely reasonable to think that, at
some future point, we might have half a dozen different candidates running
for a single statewide office on the Green Party ticket. If each of them
garnered under 2 percent of the vote, but they cumulatively garnered over
5% of the vote, and as a result we somehow lost our ballot status, I think
we'd have a good argument to make that tying ballot status to the results
of an individual candidate rather than our cumulative vote as a party for a
particular office is constitutionally suspect.

>From the CA S.O.S. site:

Maintaining Its Qualified Status

   - Once qualified, a political party maintains its qualified status by:
   - Retaining registrants representing at least 1/15 of 1 percent (0.067%)
   of the total state registration (Elections Code §§ 5101, 5153); *and*
   - Having one of its statewide candidates (running for Governor,
   Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney
   General, Insurance Commissioner, or United States Senator) receive at least
   2 percent of the entire vote of the state for that office at the June 3,
   2014, gubernatorial primary election (Elections Code §§ 5100(a), 5151(b));
    *or*
   - Retaining statewide registration equaling at least 0.33 percent of the
   total number of voters registered on the 154th day before the primary
   election or the 123rd day before the presidential general election.
   (Elections Code §§ 5100(b), 5151(c).)

But, I do agree that, if we decide to pursue endorsements in statewide
races, we need to do so much earlier, and make obtaining it (or failing to
do so) part of the calculus for running at all. We need not wait for filing
deadlines, we can make it clear to potential candidates that, if they wish
to pursue consideration for endorsement, they need to be prepared to seek
it much earlier in the process. If everyone considering a run for office
has the chance to seek an endorsement, and the process is seen as open and
not foreordained in favor of a particular candidate, and people have the
opportunity to consider whether or not they want to continue pursuing a
candidacy that lacks the endorsement of the state party prior to making the
effort of actively running for months, and working to qualify for the
ballot, then I think much of the argument over this would dissipate.

But, again... NOTHING prevents people from ignoring the fact that the state
party has made an endorsement, and running for Governor as a Green anyway,
and even should the party itself gain enough organizational heft and
strength to make our endorsement a meaningful advantage, it is very likely
that, in doing so, we make the value of a Green label under a candidate's
name on the June ballot that much higher in general, and thus continue to
attract multiple candidates for high profile races like Governor. Plenty of
Democrats and Republicans seek these offices, despite actively fighting for
their state party's endorsement, and failing to obtain it. Rank and file
members of each party know that all that a state party endorsement
represents is the opinion of the people in the room at the time a vote was
taken, and that said opinion can substantially differ from that held by the
general membership at large. This is even more the case at this point for
the CAGP, when the party as a whole lacks the ability to maintain regular
contact with the great mass of registered voters, and their relationship to
us, as organizers, is extremely tangential.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> What your comment makes clear is that next election we should hold this
> SGA primary much sooner.
>
> Our fundamental reality is that if we can focus on getting out the vote
> for only one Green in each race we will get more votes for that race. There
> is no mechanism that allows us to legally claim that we got 2% of the vote
> because two candidates got 1% each.
>
> Eric Brooks
>
> SF, CA
>
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Thomas Leavitt
> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 12:09 PM
> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for
> Governor
>
>
>
> 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 California Co-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 California Co-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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180217/25361ba5/attachment.html>