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

[Gloria Purcell]

That has always been my position as well, Linda.  I have been open to discussion this year because in all the years we have been on the ballot, our Party has not grown.  I am still struggling; would this expand our influence or wipe us out?  I think it is a big risk.
Gloria
> On 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] 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
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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 General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are 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 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