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

Thu Feb 22 17:41:55 PST 2018

I second that amendment

Brett Anthony Dixon <https://www.brettanthonydixon.com/>
b at brettanthonydixon.com
760-299-3037

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/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
>>
>> --
>>
>> *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
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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/20180222/068846d1/attachment.html>