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

[Nicole Castor]

Is there a voting page with all the voting items listed together?

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:51 PM Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus at gmail.com>
wrote:

> And what if the voters love her and next time she says she is considering
> running as a Green because.....
>
> Genevieve Marcus
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Victoria Ashley <victronix01 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> --
>> 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/20180327/fa7c71d0/attachment.html>