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

[Nicole Castor]

The invalidation comes inadvertently from endorsing single candidates
On Feb 18, 2018 7:56 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Just so that everyone understands the process. No one is going to
> ‘invalidate’ anyone. That would take a two thirds vote all of you, here in
> the SGA, or at General Assembly, and that is unlikely to ever happen,
> unless a candidate has done something really bad that is criminal and/or
> deeply violates the 10 key values of the party.
>
> Let’s try to remember that we are not Democrats, and that we are all on
> the same side here.
>
> Eric Brooks
>
>
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Chris
> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 6:11 PM
> *To:* Sean Bohac <sbohac at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for
> Governor
>
>
>
> Sean,
>
>
>
> That is an excellent point. I am concerned that three Green candidates
> will officially become "spoilers" lacking official party endorsement, and
> The state party may take aggressive action to decertify or expel these
> spoilers by invalidating their party membership to disable their otherwise
> ballot ready campaigns.
>
>
>
> It does invalidate the efforts of three statewide candidates. It does
> intervene in grassroots democracy to affect the wills of other greens,
> which violates decentralization principles as well.
>
>
>
> Why are we afraid to trust inactive, registered green voters to make a
> choice so that we are "advising" them? It shows lack of faith.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off
> the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance
> from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision
> goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont
> do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the
> strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help
> us maintain ballot status.
>
>
>
> *Sean Bohac*
> (619) 218-3192
>
>
>
> "We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine
> Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K.
> Le Guin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <
> chris at bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
>
> Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted
> earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
>
> "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 Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 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 (
>
>
> --
> 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/20180218/80d641a7/attachment.html>