[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates

[james clark]

Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.

On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against
> endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to
> registered voters to decide.
>
> On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>> <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>*
>>
>> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
>>
>> Ranked Choice Vote ID #155
>> Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for
>> General Election Candidates*
>> 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
>>
>> *Background*
>>
>> The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing
>> candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the
>> GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on
>> endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name
>> in the public eye.  The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates,
>> even in races where we have no candidate.  For instance, the Peace and
>> Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and
>> federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom
>> candidates.  The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party
>> Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate
>> running in the race.  The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between
>> good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate
>> money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system.
>> The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not
>> prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party
>> is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of
>> grassroots interest.  The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the
>> pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble
>> party-building efforts in California.
>>
>> Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to
>> implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party
>> system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we
>> will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse
>> candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party
>> affiliations.  As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the
>> ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied
>> organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get
>> an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not
>> be the best candidate.  Moreover, given that there are many public
>> perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being
>> marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t
>> win,” the endorsement area is one we can control.  We can avoid
>> marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label
>> “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary
>> folks in the nation and certainly in California.
>>
>> Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even
>> in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to
>> like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We
>> need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to
>> switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude.
>> People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures
>> make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent”
>> for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like
>> we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow
>> “sectarian” view of how change happens.
>>
>> Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement
>> Policy.
>>
>> *Proposal*
>>
>> That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
>>
>> That the policy be amended from its current text:
>>
>> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the
>> GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
>>
>> 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election
>> candidates who are not Green Party members.
>>
>> To read as follow:
>>
>> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
>>
>> 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept
>> corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that
>> accepts corporate campaign contributions.
>>
>> Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green
>> Party of Yolo County.
>>
>> Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s
>> ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
>>
>> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>> <gpca-votes at sfgreens.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/20180220/0f81b475/attachment.html>