[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State

Sun Feb 18 15:52:37 PST 2018

Not exactly the same thing. They are a powerful wealthy party that had a primary which they rigged in favor Hillary.  We are a tiny weak Party and our primary has been taken from us with Top Two, through no fault of our own, weakening us even further.  We need to work to get Top Two repealed - all Counties should be getting on board to gather signatures for the ballot initiative already underway.  But in the meanwhile we should find a mechanism for the Party (and outside forces as well such as P&F Party and NPP) to unite behind a common slate against the two establishment Party candidates, if we hope to get anywhere.
Ann

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 18, 2018, at 12:57 PM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Genevieve,
>  
> Thank you for your thoughtful response.
>  
> A few thoughts back… citing a minimum number (quorum) necessary for decision making at the GA … is different that appointing a given number SGA folks and leaving other GA representatives without a direct voice.  As the numbers are similar – it seems to me that an additional level of bureaucracy that the SGA is - is unnecessary. 
>  
> Why not just keep it simple?  If you are a GA you vote on topics that GA’s vote upon – and that’s it.  The vote can occur face to face or online and quorum getting looks pretty doable as you mentioned the numbers are almost the same.
>  
> I am not sure about how reasonable it is to state that GA delegates may not be inclined to attend digital meetings – in our council we’ve held digital meetings from time to time as needed and always had very strong attendance, and effective, simple and agenda driven meetings resulting in good decision making.  Digital meetings are the way most people regularly do business these days.
>  
> I agree that it would be unrealistic to get the input of 100,00 Greens … I don’t recall where any of my statements suggested that as an option – but if it somehow did – it wasn’t intended and I agree with your statement, at least in the present way that things are done at the GPCA.
>  
> I understand that it appears that at the time the SGA may have been created – it was designed as a way to help.  How long ago was that? 
>  
> Maybe what we are facing is just the need for the party and its mechanisms to evolve from the best practices of the 1990’s into what is the most efficient and most inviting and participatory in 2018 ☺ .
>  
> That would be my hope.
>  
> Wanda
>  
>  
>  
> From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org> on behalf of Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> Date: Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 4:00 PM
> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State
>  
> Wanda Jean what you say is interesting.  The quorum for decision making at the last GA was 153 delegates.
> The SGA has 156 delegates.  So there isn't much difference.  The differences that DO exist are that GA delegates
> are elected by county and SGA delegates are appointed.  Also, GA delegates tend to be less likely to travel to a remote
> meeting.  They may not be more inclined to attend digital meetings.  But maybe they would attend limited infrequent
> meetings like endorsements....
> 
> Hoping to get the views of 100,000 Greens is unrealistic.  Many don't vote, don't follow the issues, and just
> registered because someone asked them to.  That's why work has always been done by the GA.  And as work increased
> the SGA seemed like a good way to help.
> 
> Genevieve Marcus   
>  
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you June for that easy to follow clarification.
>  
> So it appears the situation is as follows: the SGA representatives exist to vote the will of their County Councils on the endorsement question – or any other question put before them – is that correct?
>  
> If it is – and they are not just random Greens put in a position to influence the party’s activities for reasons other than county level authorization of their representation – and although I am an SGA, yet find the entire SGA construct tedious, cumbersome and unnecessary – as GA’s for each county ought just to be able to participate in an online forum from time to time to gain the representative consensus to any question that would otherwise be put before all GA’s face to face, easily and without all this rigamarole – but I digress.
>  
> If the above understanding, in the first line of this email, is correct – then the SGAs vote the will of their councils on this or any other question – yes? 
>  
> Wanda
>  
> From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org> on behalf of June Brashares <june.brashares at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> Date: Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:03 AM
> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State
>  
> Hi Chris,
> 
> I have good news for you.  This process does allow SGA voters the option to endorse every Green statewide candidate that qualifies for the CA June Primary Ballot.  
> 
> The  SGA voters will have the option to vote to "Endorse", or "Oppose" or "No Position" on every one of the individual qualified candidates.  SGA voters can choose "Endorse" for every qualified candidate they feel well represents Green values. Yes, that means you can vote "endorse" for more than one candidate for a particular office if you choose. Or if a SGA voter wants to vote to "endorse" on only one of the candidates, the voter can do that and vote "No Position" or "Oppose" on the others.  Or any such combination.
> 
>  A candidate will need to receive the 2/3rd threshold of support from the SGA voters to obtain the "Endorsed by GPCA" badge of honor.    One candidate achieving that level of support to be endorsed does not prevent another candidate for that same office from also achieving that level of approval for endorsement.  The candidate who doesn't get that 2/3rds level of support cannot blame it on being knocked out by another candidate  --  it's up to each candidate to garner at least 2/3rds of the SGA voters positively liking that candidate regardless of what is thought of the other candidates for that office.
> 
> Sorry this wasn't made clear earlier.
> 
> The goal for the candidates in this SGA endorsement process is really to get 2/3rds of the SGA to like them.  I think those smiles you mentioned are good advice for candidates here. I think negative campaigning will not likely help a candidate get to 2/3rds support.
> 
> June
>  
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris at bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
> This is a thread for Secretary of State,
>  
> Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
>  
> In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
> 
> With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
>  
> If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
>  
> Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
>  
> My three cents,
> Chris Carlson
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>  
> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
>  
> Ranked Choice Vote ID #147
> Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State 
> Number of Seats: 1
> Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
> Discussion  02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
> Voting  03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
> Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
>  
> The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
>  
> Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
>  
> Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at 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
> 
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
> -- 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/20180218/b5e85d74/attachment.html>