[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy

Tue Feb 20 13:34:27 PST 2018

What increases the GPCA reach is showing up as an electoral alternative to the other parties and we don’t do that by hiding from electoral decisions and functions.

The reach and exposure of our party relies on all of us campaigning all the time FOR the party. Long before they became candidates many of those running today have been party building and campaigning for GPCA already. Why would they stop because as candidates, didn’t get an endorsement? 
I have faith in all our great candidates and I don’t believe any of them would do that.

But if as some of you have suggested, not being endorsed leads to some candidates stepping back from serving the goals of GPCA, that clearly demonstrates their values and level of commitment to the party, right?

I think it was previously suggested that GPCA endorse everyone!! ;-D 
THAT certainly does not give us credibility as a serious political organiation!

> On Feb 20, 2018, at 1:11 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Having multiple candidates would increase our reach. 3 people can reach far more than one, for example. From feedback I'm receiving, having a small body select the candidates for our voters is seen as creating an "establishment candidate". This is a turn off for many constituents, and may lead to a decline in registered green voters. This may be an especially big issue for those who left the Dems over their super delegates not listening to voters. Any statewide endorsement of candidates should be inclusive to all registered greens to vote on, not a small group of "party elites". The voters, and our key values are our Roots, how can we say we practice Grass Roots democracy, when we don't let the roots have a say??
> 
> On Feb 20, 2018 12:58 PM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton at gmail.com <mailto:sadie.fulton at gmail.com>> wrote:
> "The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic." 
> 
> There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this listserv are the people opposed to this proposal. 
> 
> I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could make a concrete difference in the world.
> 
> I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has attended one can attest.
> 
> Namaste.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit at gmail.com>> wrote:
> The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens. 
> 
> Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
> 
> On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com <mailto:nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>> wrote:
> SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
> 
> The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
> 
> GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
> 
> http://cagreens.org/ga <http://cagreens.org/ga>
> http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates <http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates>
> On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio at hotmail.com <mailto:lauren_mauricio at hotmail.com>> wrote:
> If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak).  So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state.  Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county.  In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them.  But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign.  In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lauren Mauricio
> 
> 
> From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org>> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit at gmail.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM
> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes
> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
>  
> Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
> 
> How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal. 
> 
> This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
> 
> This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles. 
> 
> Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
> 
> On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris at bestofbroadway.org <mailto:chris at bestofbroadway.org>> wrote:
> Good afternoon fellow Greens,
> 
> We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
> 
> Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar. 
> 
> I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
> 
> I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
> 
> I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
> 
> We are all greens.
> 
> Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
> 
> I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
> 
> God bless,
> Christopher Carlson
> 916.704.0058 <tel:(916)%20704-0058>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <mailto:erikrydberg34 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties. 
>> 
>> The Green Party is the  only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their  Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection. 
>> 
>> The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
>> 
>> We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free  Parties. 
>> 
>> If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from. 
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio <lauren_mauricio at hotmail.com <mailto:lauren_mauricio at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> We really should be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though.  I was a Berniecrat.  I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%.  So I voted Green and never looked back.  If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day.  I know a lot of people who share the same story.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Lauren Mauricio
>> Tulare County
>> 
>> 
>> From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com <mailto:nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>>
>> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
>> 
>> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes
>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
>>  
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jmc at sfgreens.org>)
>> http://sfgreens.org/ <http://sfgreens.org/>
>> 
>> --
>> gpca-votes mailing list
>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> gpca-votes mailing list
>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
>> 
>> --
>> gpca-votes mailing list
>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <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 <http://www.venturacountygreenparty.com/>
>> greenpartyvc at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
>> 
>> --
>> gpca-votes mailing list
>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
>> -- 
>> Erik Rydberg 
>> Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson
>> erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <mailto:erikrydberg34 at gmail.com>
>> 530-781-2903 <tel:(530)%20781-2903>
>> 
>>                 cagreens.org <http://cagreens.org/>
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> gpca-votes mailing list
>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
> 
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
> 
> 
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
> 
> 
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
> 
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
> 
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <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/20180220/e2ec621e/attachment.html>