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

Mon Mar 26 18:48:57 PDT 2018

The Peace & Freedom Party endorsed several Greens, and not that that obligates us to reciprocate, it certainly does not, but the Peace & Freedom Party aligns with our values extraordinarily well. As to the "then they should run as Greens" line, while I agree with the idea that the left needs to unite under the Green banner, we need to consider than in a race, like State Treasurer, where there is no Green, we still may be able to prevent a duopoly win in our unity. How great, to have a socialist Treasurer, regardless of party.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office

I have serious reservations when it comes to having faith that there could be consensus within the GPCA in deciding if a, “Green had major problems with positions at odds with our values and platform,” particularly when SGA dels seem to vote on faction lines.

Why open the door to such a thing? If this is about McGlauglin, why not propose an endorsement process over specific candidates, rather than writing a blank check right into our bylaws??? 

If this proposal were to pass, there is no way to know now how it may be used/abused in the future, which is why I am voting NO on endorsing non-Greens through GPCA.

Nicole Castor 
GP Sacramento County

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 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 isbetterable 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]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 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 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 listgpca-votes at sfgreens.orghttps://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/20180326/924b55a9/attachment.html>