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

Thu Feb 22 22:13:54 PST 2018

Personally I assess candidate values and actions, not party affiliation. A progressive tent can only succeed if it promotes collaboration and partnership between like minded people from differing parties. Endorsement is one relatively easy step in growing the tent. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 21, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Ann Menasche <aemenasche at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would probably have had that position a few years ago but I think some thinking outside the box is necessary to break out of our isolation, even though there are some risks as you outlined.  Working on common slates with a left wing Party like Peace and Freedom seems pretty low risk to me. Same goes for progressive anti corporate independents.  For example, our local Greens are supporting Gayle McLaughlin's independent run even though I would have much preferred that she run as a Green.  There is some risk with her - that she will eventually join the DP- but think it is relatively low at least for the immediate future and her campaign is on the whole extremely positive. I don't think we as the GP should ever support registered Democrats in partisan races even if they claim to be corporate free. 
> 
> Even for local non partisan races, supporting registered Democrats is risky but in certain narrow circumstances may make sense in conjunction with Progressive Alliances. These issues have come up in the SD Progressive Alliance that the SD Green Party formed last year.  We have defined corporate free to include rejecting Democratic Party money.  We have as the SDPA endorsed one person who is a registered Democratic but has never held office before for local non partisan office. She agreed to reject DP money though seeking their endorsement (she probably won't get it but if she did she would get the benefit of DP resources through mailings, etc.) We rejected a better known more experienced Democratic politician also for a non partisan office because we were not convinced she was committed to being corporate free or putting people over profits. 
> 
> We are hoping our SDPA will at some point be able to ensure accountability but it is too small and weak now to do that. So we are taking a risk. And the SDPA should also in the future be running Greens with broader support than we could get on our own. 
> 
> Yes, the pressure to join the DP is tremendous including for people who run as Greens and get elected. The best we can do is build the Green Party while being cautiously open to some experimentation even statewide (developing common slates with progressive corporate free independents and other left wing parties) but  especially at the local level. 
> Ann
> 
> Ann
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 4:18 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
>>> 
>>> 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 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/20180222/8befd204/attachment.html>