[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy

james clark faygodrinkit at gmail.com
Tue Feb 20 15:15:01 PST 2018 

I'm more concerned that creating an "establishment pick" would loose us
voters in the long run than I am current Candidates ending their campaign.

On Feb 20, 2018 3:07 PM, "Nassim Nouri" <nassim1nouri at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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>
>> 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>
>>> 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/sga/2017-2018/delegates
>>>> On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <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> on behalf of
>>>>> james clark <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> 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 <(916)%20704-0058>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <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> 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> on behalf of
>>>>> Nicole Castor <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>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> *Erik Rydberg *
>>>>>
>>>>> *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> 530-781-2903
>>>>> <(530)%20781-2903> *
>>>>>
>>>>>                 cagreens.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
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180220/29f4f88c/attachment.html>

More information about the gpca-votes mailing list