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

Thu Feb 22 18:55:54 PST 2018

Genevieve,

Aren't we off topic here, in that this is conditions we're asking to put in
place when a non-Green seeks our endorsement? This proposal has nothing to
do with how we communicate our values to the general public, which I agree
is a worthy topic, just not relevant to the question of conditions required
for endorsement.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Genevieve Marcus <
genevieve.marcus at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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_v
>> ote_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 *
>
> --
> 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/a275786c/attachment.html>