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

Wed Feb 21 14:04:03 PST 2018

I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche at gmail.com> wrote:

> That is an excellent suggestion.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not
> accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that
> the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars?  That shouldn't be
> hard.
>
> Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the
> reasons for the endorsement is the fact that  s/he also supports the GP
> values expressed in our Four Pillars:  Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice
> and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
>
> That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
>
> Genevieve Marcus
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take
>> Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This
>> proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians,
>> American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and
>> Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African
>> People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
>>
>> The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green
>> Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened
>> their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they
>> currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to
>> our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the
>> vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
>>
>> This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and
>> corporate free parties and candidates.
>>
>> Please vote yes.
>>
> <IMG_4783.jpg>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that
>>> to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values
>>> (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the
>>> Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core
>>> values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who
>>> bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of
>>> principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption
>>> and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties
>>> are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green
>>> Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
>>>
>>> We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and
>>> running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and
>>> the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists
>>> to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party
>>> candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own
>>> candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek
>>> our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will
>>> inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats"
>>> who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while
>>> benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on
>>> their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our
>>> party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal
>>> of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable
>>> to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be
>>> elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and
>>> as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We
>>> already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a
>>> political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're
>>> a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's
>>> endorsement).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Thomas Leavitt
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 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/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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine,
> Common Sense, 1776 *
>
> --
> 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/20180221/4bfbb84a/attachment.html>