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

Thu Feb 22 12:45:53 PST 2018

However I would not support endorsing any Democrats, or Republicans.

On Feb 22, 2018 12:45 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would support the friendly amendment to add "and supports the 10 key
> values" to the proposal. While I agree with Nicole about the allocation of
> time, I also believe that building a coalition of non corporate party's and
> independent candidates can help us grow into a more formidable force. It
> would also help our candidates gain support in the future. On the
> international level, these coalitions we're essential to greens taking
> office.
>
> On Feb 22, 2018 12:01 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary
> for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether
> or not an endorsement is appropriate.
>
> Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for
> Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we
> should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out.
> On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's
>> part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of
>> support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have an example: Bernie Sanders
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for
>>>> putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in
>>>> our struggles for political reforms, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote
>>>> the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources
>>>> helping others who may or may not help us in return.
>>>> On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow at socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against
>>>>> politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part.
>>>>> Lol.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions
>>>>>> against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be
>>>>>> presented to registered voters to decide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 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/s
>>>>>>> ga_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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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/20180222/a1ed9110/attachment.html>