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

Mon Mar 26 18:24:29 PDT 2018

Thomas,
When I say image problem,  I mean most registered Greens that actually do
political work don't care about the party. So many people who share our
values dismiss our candidates or need the infrastructure of another party.
Gayle is a good example of Green values not running as a NPP. In my
district a woman stepped up who is 95% green and has hige backing within
the progressive circles, while our green candidate, while the right person,
doesnt have the resources and social network to run a good campaign.
I don't disagree that Greens are different than other socialist parties in
many ways. But I have to ask, if not trying to gain state power (a Marxist
objective) why are we a political party?
I think the tribalism of parties is a negative influence on the political
system as is. Where I live, the Republican wins because of tribal hatred
for Democrats even though they acknowledge our reps are self-serving. I
don't think that sort of tribalism does is any good. To Nicole's point,
this proposal isn't saying we endorse candidates from this party or that.
It is ending the tribalism prohibition on ever casting an endorsement
outside the party. Right now it would be illegal per procedure to endorse
Gayle.
We have to be willing ro get behind candidates that reflect our values. As
a matter of course, that disbars democrats who do not share our principles
of antiwar and corporate free by virtue of their participation in that
party. A people powered movement is growing. We stand a greater chance to
be incredibly influential to candidates aligned with that groundswell if we
can use an endorsement as a carrot rather than dismissing them because they
are different in a very superficial way.
On Mar 26,  4:12 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt at gmail.com> wrote:

I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is
currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support
such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an
NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party
endorsement.

Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political
pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad
variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those
from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources
that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party
candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional
situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party
endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to
approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens,
simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.

Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist
Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party
specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are
anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed
to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to
attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our
banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are
incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image
problem", because of genuine ideological differences.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20180327/e7664c19/attachment.html>