[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Counties Directing Their SGA Delegates (was RE: Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor)

[james clark]

If we aren't reaching out to engage voters, what's the point??

On Feb 20, 2018 8:23 PM, "Steve Breedlove" <srbreedlove at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've largely sat out this conversation because I think the advantages of
> endorsing are minimal and clearly it is controversial. But the reasoning
> that people who don't participate should be consulted is ridiculous. Use
> social media or email if they can't attend for physical reasons or
> whatever. This notion that we have to spend our precious volunteer time
> reaching out to people who don't care to be engaged any other day of the
> year is unrealistic and frankly a waste of time. We can't beg people to
> participate. We've had registered greens tell us to remove them from our
> mailing list. Being registered doesn't mean they want to participate in
> this shit show we call a party.
> My two cents. And nothing but love for you, comrade.
>
> On Feb 20, 2018 1:57 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The problem still lies in that not all registered greens attend county
>> council meetings. For internal issues, that's not such a big deal. When
>> endorsing candidates however, it creates an "establishment candidate" by
>> having a small group deciding for the rest.
>>
>> On Feb 19, 2018 12:45 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, this point is a really important point. Delegates are **delegates**
>>> who are supposed to represent their **county** decisions.
>>>
>>> In San Francisco our county membership vets and decides on all SGA vote
>>> items and our delegates are strictly required to all vote as directed by
>>> the county.
>>>
>>> This is why the GPCA gives more than a month for discussion on SGA votes
>>> so that all counties can be assured of having time to meet about the SGA
>>> ballot items and decide how they wish to vote on them.
>>>
>>> Eric Brooks
>>>
>>> SGA Vote Admin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf
>>> Of *Nassim Nouri
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:04 PM
>>> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for
>>> Governor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote
>>> is not representative of the Greens in our counties.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Shouldn’t all SGA delegates
>>>
>>> bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion
>>> and input?
>>>
>>> We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do
>>> as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members
>>> to the best of our ability in order to
>>>
>>> participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members.
>>> This is our mandate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their
>>> past SGA votes unrepresentative?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If so, why participate in votes as delegates?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nassim Nouri
>>>
>>> Santa Clara County
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered
>>> greens.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria at extragalactic.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not
>>> going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks.  It
>>> would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate.
>>> Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by
>>> formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”.
>>> Gloria
>>>
>>> > 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 (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-vote s
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > gpca-votes mailing list
>>> > gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > gpca-votes mailing list
>>> > gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
>>> > --
>>> > Anthony J. Krzywicki,
>>> > Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California
>>> > Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council
>>> > www.venturacountygreenparty.co m
>>> > 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-vote s
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > gpca-votes mailing list
>>> > gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
>>> > --
>>> > Anthony J. Krzywicki,
>>> > Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California
>>> > Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council
>>> > www.venturacountygreenparty.co m
>>> > 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-vote s
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > gpca-votes mailing list
>>> > gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > 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/d59e2e4f/attachment.html>