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

[Nicole Castor]

Greens,

When did we ever say we wanted to be an "umbrella" party?

There is a place and purpose for coalitions and alliances. These groups
typically consist of members of different parties or organizations who form
together for a common purpose. To use an example- in Sacramento County, GP
Sac County holds a seat on the Steering Committee of the Sacramento
Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights. Other members include
representatives from Jewish Voice for Peace, ANSWER Sacramento,
Grandmothers for Peace, Veterans for Peace, Sacramento Area Peace Action,
Sac Chapter NLG, Sac County PFP, among many others (full list
https://sac4palestine.org/member-organizations/).  Some of these groups are
coalitions themselves, but most are distinct organizations which represent
what their organization stands for. It can be assumed that all of these
groups are inclusive, in general, but it seems unlikely you would find
non-grandmothers in Grandmothers for Peace, for example, because the
purpose would not really make sense.

The structure of these groups is decided by dedicated members who relate to
the experiences held by those in the categories they represent. To add
input from people outside of the organization would dilute the intent of a
specific organization.

Now upon reading PFP Bylaws (see Article VIII), it seems they do not
specify a process for endorsing non-PFP candidates and in fact state, "If
an endorsed Peace and Freedom Party candidate is no longer a Peace and
Freedom Party candidate, then that endorsement must be withdrawn unless and
until the State Central Committee, the State Executive Committee or the
state officers vote by a simple majority of those present and voting to
reinstate it."

https://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws

Seems they have a process to make decisions based on circumstance, but DO
NOT have this written in bylaws, which is an important distinction. I'm
waiting to hear back from someone in PFP for clarity and will share what he
says about this later.

I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would likely exhaust our energy and
resources further. In this cycle, CCWG failed to identify Green candidates
running for statewide office, and as such, we do not have a reliable way to
ensure no Green is running for an office in which we might consider
endorsing a non-Green.

I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would entitle non-Greens to funds and
non-monetary resources which are already scarce in our party, and without
said candidates holding any obligation to our party, or to the TKV after
election time.

I'm voting NO because this would encourage candidates to not run as Greens,
and would therefore impede our purpose in promoting Green Party.

*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/sga_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/20180221/271caa55/attachment.html>