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

Thu Feb 22 18:20:11 PST 2018

Shane,

This conversation mainly addresses non Green people who might be attracted
to the Party by a non Green endorsement of someone they admire.
Of course, all Green parties should support the 10 Key Values.  But some
Values, like Decentralization, might not be understood by the 50%
of the population that doesn't vote.  Especially because this is a big
country and the Green Party continues to run candidates to lead it.  Does
that mean we don't support decentralization or does it mean we recognize
that many Americans are immersed in jobs and lifestyles at this time
that make decentralization confusing?

Genevieve Marcus

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:54 PM, shane que hee <squehee at ucla.edu> wrote:

> Genevieve:
>
> I agree with Eric since it is GPCA and not GPUS.
>
> The Pillars are ideal for peopl who want things short , sweet and
> malleable like millennials
>
> Should  all state Green partis hew to the GPUS line of the 4 pillars only?
>
>
> .....Shane Que Hee, Feb 22 2018
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> At 07:35 PM 2/21/2018, Genevieve Marcus wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
> The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters.Â  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
>
> Â
>
> From: gpca-votes [ mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org
> <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
>
> Â
>
> I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)
>
> Â
>
> 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?Â  That shouldn't be
> hard.Â
>
> Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the
> reasons for the endorsement is the fact thatÂ  s/he also supports the GP
> values expressed in our Four Pillars:Â  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
> Peopleâ€™s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.Â
>
> Â
>
> 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. Iâ€™m not
> suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for
> corporate free parties and candidates.Â
>
> Â
>
> This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and
> corporate free parties and candidates.
>
> Â
>
> Please vote yes.
>
> <IMG_4783.jpg>
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> 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
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please send your discussion comments toÂ gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>
> Â
>
> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
>
> Â
>
> 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
>
> DiscussionÂ  02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
>
> VotingÂ  03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
>
> Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
>
> Â
>
> BackgroundÂ
>
> Â
>
> 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.Â  The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good
> candidates, even in races where we have no candidate.Â  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.Â  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.Â  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.Â  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.Â  The current endorsement policy was promulgated in
> the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble
> party-building efforts in California.
>
> Â
>
> Changing the endorsement policy would advance the partyâ€™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.Â  As it stands, people who want to â€œthrow their hat in the
> ringâ€ 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.Â  Moreover, given that there are many public
> perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being
> marginalized or cast as â€œspoilersâ€ or â€œthird-partyâ€ candidates who
> â€œcanâ€™t win,â€ the endorsement area is one we can control.Â  We can
> avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the
> label â€œGreen Party,â€ not the green values that we share with millions of
> ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.Â Â
>
> Â
>
> Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in
> life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, youâ€™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 â€œteam Green Party,â€ while we display an unwelcoming
> attitude.Â  People want a new party, but our current restrictive
> endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an
> â€œumbrella partyâ€ or â€œbig tentâ€ for all people who are aligned with
> our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive
> â€œthirdâ€ party with a narrow â€œsectarianâ€ view of how change happens.
>
> Â
>
> Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement
> Policy.
>
> Â
>
> Proposal
>
> Â
>
> That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
>
> Â
>
> That the policy be amended from its current text:
>
> Â
>
> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the
> GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
>
> Â
>
> 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates
> who are not Green Party members.
>
> Â
>
> To read as follow:
>
> Â
>
> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
>
> Â
>
> 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.
>
> Â
>
> Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party
> of Yolo County.
>
> Â
>
> Full details will be available at:Â http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_
> vote_bylaw_interpretations
>
> Â
>
> Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
> Â
>
> --
> 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
> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>
>
> [image: []]
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  cagreens.org
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

-- 
*"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/20180222/0e536660/attachment.html>