[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office

[Jane Jarlsberg]

I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion
either!!  i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is
better able to  articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a at verizon.net>
wrote:

> If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate
> donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the
> incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard
> enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this
> will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could
> leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their
> own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small
> party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not
> give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
> Linda Piera-Avila
> Santa Monica
> PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal
> on my own!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion
> that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA
> ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
>
> Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green
> candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate
> donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform,
> items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for
> those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
>
> I hope this clears up any confusion.
>
> Eric Brooks
> SGA Vote Administrator
>
>
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org
> <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM
> *To:* gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment:
> GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
>
>
>
> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> <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 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/20180326/e389dd61/attachment.html>