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

Thu Feb 22 17:10:42 PST 2018

I guess it would be helpful to understand what the evaluation process would
be for an endorsement of this sort, and what level of effort and engagement
with an outside candidate we would expect to have.

Also, given June Brashares' statement that our endorsement process allows
multiple candidates to be endorsed, it seems logical to assume that this
process could potentially involve endorsement of multiple non-Green
candidates for the same office, and also endorsement of a non-Green
candidacy in a race where an endorsed Green Party candidate is running; you
might think that unlikely, but if a prominent progressive that had a broad
base of support was running as an NPP for, say, U.S. Senate, I can see a
situation in which we could wind up in a knock down drag out fight between
various factions within the party over who to endorse (see Cobb vs. Nader
on a national basis in 2004), and wind up either endorsing no one, both as
a compromise, or even only endorse an non-Green candidate when we have our
own candidates running for office. There is nothing in this proposal to
prevent that. It also makes us vulnerable to a  Lyndon LaRouche or Lenora
Fulani / New Alliance Party style entrant takeover (as I vividly remember
was almost executed on the Peefers back in '92) where supporters of an
external candidacy flood our local meetings for the purpose of swinging an
endorsement.

To protect us from these scenarios, I would like to see something like the
CC specifically having to find that no credible candidate is running under
the Green Party banner for a particular office before any endorsement of a
non-Green candidate can be even considered. Would the sponsors of this
amendment be open to that?

Thomas

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is just a standard specifically for candidate endorsement, and won’t
> trickle down to voters.
>
> I would not want to endorse any candidate who cannot agree to the 10 Key
> Values.
>
> This will already be a given with our endorsement process, but if people
> want the 10 Key Values explicitly spelled out as a standard in this vote
> item, I’m fine with that.
>
> Eric Brooks
>
>
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Genevieve Marcus
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 7:35 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
>
>
>
> 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 *
>
> --
> 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/20180222/0cd6f0c5/attachment.html>