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

Sat Feb 24 08:52:35 PST 2018

Again, talking to the GENERAL PUBLIC most of whom know little other than
life in a big country like the U.S.
about decentralizing would be largely meaningless.  It's a complex topic
for novices.  Some would say we're already decentralized...
into states and cities.  However, the 4 Pillars are familiar and the
candidate can talk about how the GP plans to implement
them.

Genevieve Marcus

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I don’t think it is off topic. Endorsement of candidates is one way that
> the Green Party communicates with the public.
>
> I completely disagree with Genevieve’s thesis though.
>
> The way that we get the general public to start realizing what
> decentralization is and why it is important to their lives, is to endorse
> candidates who will talk about it.
>
> Eric Brooks
>
> SF, CA
>
>
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Thomas Leavitt
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 6:56 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
>
>
>
> 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_
> 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 *
>
>
> --
> 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/20180224/8943f9a9/attachment.html>