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

[J HALL]

As for the 10 Key Principles vs. 4 pillars. They are both valuable. Again, these are values embraced by the Green Party. We are never going to reach 100% agreement with 100% of the Green Party members on 100% of the values. However, we need to respect our members enough to know that each member is capable of grappling with their own values as they relate to the Green Party values. Just because one member doesn't agree with one key value, doesn't mean we have to change that policy. We have to stand for something. And if we start to water that down in order to accommodate every divergent view, we stand for nothing. (Sure, we can discuss our GPCA platform at General Assembly, but I am weary of, and unaccustomed to the sheer volume- and tone- of emails back and forth!). And, as I stated before, I feel strongly that we only endorse candidates who are Green Party members. The assumption would be that a Green candidate agrees *enough* with the 10 Key Principles and 4 pillars to be endorsed. Just because it is hard to gain legitimacy as a party, doesn't mean we give up and sell-out. 


      From: Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus at gmail.com>
 To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org> 
 Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 9:16 AM
 Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
   
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 BrooksSF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@ 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 timethat 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.  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 BrooksSF, CA From: gpca-votes [ mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@ sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Sadie FultonSent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PMTo: 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 I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :) 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 thatthe prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars?  That shouldn't be hard.  Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that  s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars:  Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.Genevieve MarcusOn 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 People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc. 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. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates. This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates. Please vote yes.<IMG_4783.jpg>  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  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 #155Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election CandidatesRanked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike GoldbeckDiscussion  02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018Voting  03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018Voting 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. Â 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 listgpca-votes at sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes --gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes at sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes-- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokespersonerikrydberg34 at gmail.com530-781-2903                cagreens.org  

--gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes at sfgreens.orghttps://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 listgpca-votes at sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes --gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes at sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes --gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes at sfgreens.orghttps://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-- 
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/20180224/2b302074/attachment.html>