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

Fri Feb 23 08:43:05 PST 2018

I’m voting yes. When was it said we operate on a party first and principles second? When was it said that like-minded progressives can’t collaborate and cross endorse? When was it said that the Green Party must remain inconsequential to statewide political outcomes?

The Green Party cannot afford to be an isolationist party, fearing collaboration with those that honor our values. Let’s not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. 

My two cents

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Greens,
> 
> When did we ever say we wanted to be an "umbrella" party?
> 
> There is a place and purpose for coalitions and alliances. These groups typically consist of members of different parties or organizations who form together for a common purpose. To use an example- in Sacramento County, GP Sac County holds a seat on the Steering Committee of the Sacramento Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights. Other members include representatives from Jewish Voice for Peace, ANSWER Sacramento, Grandmothers for Peace, Veterans for Peace, Sacramento Area Peace Action, Sac Chapter NLG, Sac County PFP, among many others (full list https://sac4palestine.org/member-organizations/).  Some of these groups are coalitions themselves, but most are distinct organizations which represent what their organization stands for. It can be assumed that all of these groups are inclusive, in general, but it seems unlikely you would find non-grandmothers in Grandmothers for Peace, for example, because the purpose would not really make sense.
> 
> The structure of these groups is decided by dedicated members who relate to the experiences held by those in the categories they represent. To add input from people outside of the organization would dilute the intent of a specific organization.
> 
> Now upon reading PFP Bylaws (see Article VIII), it seems they do not specify a process for endorsing non-PFP candidates and in fact state, "If an endorsed Peace and Freedom Party candidate is no longer a Peace and Freedom Party candidate, then that endorsement must be withdrawn unless and until the State Central Committee, the State Executive Committee or the state officers vote by a simple majority of those present and voting to reinstate it."
> 
> https://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws
> 
> Seems they have a process to make decisions based on circumstance, but DO NOT have this written in bylaws, which is an important distinction. I'm waiting to hear back from someone in PFP for clarity and will share what he says about this later.
> 
> I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would likely exhaust our energy and resources further. In this cycle, CCWG failed to identify Green candidates running for statewide office, and as such, we do not have a reliable way to ensure no Green is running for an office in which we might consider endorsing a non-Green.
> 
> I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would entitle non-Greens to funds and non-monetary resources which are already scarce in our party, and without said candidates holding any obligation to our party, or to the TKV after election time.
> 
> I'm voting NO because this would encourage candidates to not run as Greens, and would therefore impede our purpose in promoting Green Party. 
> 
> 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180223/bb3d786a/attachment.html>