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

Wed Feb 21 19:35:02 PST 2018

Eric,

The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters.  The 4
Pillars are a more acceptable start.

Genevieve Marcus

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I put forward the friendly amendment **to** the proposed amendment to
> make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.
>
> Eric Brooks
>
> SF, CA
>
>
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Sadie Fulton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM
> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy
> Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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 *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180221/ebce33cb/attachment.html>