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

Mon Mar 26 14:35:35 PDT 2018

Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem
and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or
Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party
dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to
endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another
left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on
actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People
already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are
running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice
dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.

On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg at gmail.com> wrote:

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
>
>
--
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/f96b64c0/attachment.html>