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

[Thomas Leavitt]

As I understand it, so long as the Democratic Party itself receives
"corporate" funding, even a "good Democrat" (Bernie Sanders, for example,
or Congressperson Ro Khanna in my area) that refuses corporate donations
would not be eligible to be endorsed.

There is nothing in the language of the proposal itself to prohibit
endorsing multiple candidates for office (even though many of those
advocating for it are seemingly against that idea), or mandating a
preference for Green candidates over others. Given the party's history of
factionalism, I can total see a scenario in which the faction dominant at
the time winds endorsing a P&F or NPP candidate over a genuine Green in
disfavor with them, or the party winds up in a knock down dragged out fight
over endorsement a la Nader 2004.

That said, this is not likely to be a frequent scenario, although I do
agree that the net effect is to somewhat decrease the incentive to remain a
Green when running for higher office instead of registering NPP. This
effect increases as the value of an endorsement from the Green Party
increases. So, yes, we're effectively slitting our own throats at some
level here... I honestly don't see how we gain anything of substance via
alliance with the P&F party, with whom we actually compete for voter
registrations and donations, and which is even less organized and less
resourceful than we are. But, maybe there is some benefit... a NPP
candidate advertising our endorsement might be free publicity.

But... given that local county parties have and will continue to endorse
non-Greens on a regular basis, and the limited number of potential outside
endorsements, and the limited benefit this provides to any candidate, and
the fact that this requires a vote and that we can expect limited financial
and other resources to be prioritized to races in which actual Greens are
running... and that we can reverse the policy at will if it winds up being
counterproductive.

Given all that, this is more symbolic than substantive, and that some
people strongly feel that there is value of a statement of solidarity
between non-corporate parties (even if the other party is statist, and thus
ideologically opposed to core Green principles), I'm willing to stand aside.

Thomas Leavitt

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 12:05 PM 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180326/3a48217c/attachment.html>