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

[Victoria Ashley]

Given the long history of Greens becoming Democrats when it suits them, as they move up the ladder, it is actually quite a victory that Gayle McLaughlin chose NOT to become a Democrat In order to run a statewide campaign, and could easily have done so and probably won the Lieutenant Governor seat.

By running as No Party Preference, she presents a huge conundrum for the Democrats. If they try to decimate her, they will further alienate the tons of Bernie Democrats who have already endorsed her. And if they do not, then a rogue actor is in their territory.  

Will the Sierra Club endorse her?  This presents a conundrum for them too, with their long history of endorsing Democrats-only (even ones who were later taken away in handcuffs by the FBI).

Gayle shook things up by running NPP, all around, and now everyone has to think a bit more about where they stand and what they believe.

That this would be somewhat divisive within the Green Party is inevitable. It’s a normal response and shows that we are diverse in our thinking.  

Currently I see us arguing about Party versus people.  But really, of course, we all agree on wanting a better world here in California.

The arguments for Party loyalty are bringing up concerns about the long-term impact on people, if the Green Party allows or supports candidates defecting with no consequence.  The basic premise is that the Green Party is good for people and we must support it and grow it for that reason. I think we’re all in agreement on that basic underlying idea.

And the arguments for people over Party are concerned about the near term impact on people if a Democrat wins, and not Gayle - they see this as an important opportunity to shake up the stranglehold by Democrats on our state government - now, this year.  I think we can all agree, given the large number of endorsements she already has by Progressive Democrats, County Greens, P&F and others, that she has one of the most powerful non-corporate statewide campaigns to potentially win the election.

Importantly, this is not a debate about platform and issues – – this is something else.  Her decisions, her votes, her work as a Lieutenant Governor are likely all what we would agree with, and what the vast majority of Californians would agree with.

This is about party loyalty, but also about the real-life day-to-day events for average people.

While that sounds like a least-worst argument, we know that it is not, since we know that Gayle is actually a real Progressive through and through, and will never vote for war, or for oil, or for billionaires - that she will never vote in any of the ways we abhor.

So that means that this is really only about a hypothesized outcome relating to party loyalty… 

On the one side there is the idea that her winning the race as an NPP will drain the Green Party of support, damage the party and create confusion, leading to a long-term loss overall for Greens.

A different hypothesis might say that as an elected member of our state government, she could be an advocate for proportional representation and RCV, leading to an exponential *growth* of the Green Party.  She could advocate for everything we believe, from within the state government, because she is a true Progressive.

To me, this is an amazing opportunity that I never thought would happen this soon. I think the risk of the more negative proposed future is worth the potential huge benefit of the positive outcome.

- Victoria

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined? 
> 
> “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.” 
> 
>> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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. 
> 
> -- 
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes