Bob,
You bring up an interesting scenario. Yes, Nader ran for GPUS Presidential candidate (not a GPCA decision) in 1996 and 2000.
In 2004 he was so self assured he would again get the nomination that he did not participate in preliminary procedures (I know I'm probably over simplifying) and David Cobb, who had followed the procedures, got the party's nomination. Nader then bolted the party and ran an independent campaign, taking Camejo with him. This probably diluted/split Green Party voters and campaign energy. I wonder if he would have done the same thing had he been a registered Green.
But, again, that was a national party decision to run him as our candidate and the decision before us here is a statewide decision, in the context of operating under the top two jungle primary with already dwindling registration numbers.
Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Marsh <bob.marshg at gmail.com>
To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>; Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
FYI - the GP Alameda County has had for many years a policy of never endorsing Demopublican or Republicrat candidates for partisan office. However, we have many times endorsed Independent or PF candidates when we did not have a Green candidate in the race. I can only remember one instance of endorsing someone over a Green, and that was the very unusual situation of a guy in So.Cal who was a sort of "fake Green", i.e. he had been PF and changed to Green just to run for state office.
It seems reasonable to me for GPCA to endorse Independents or PFers, in some cases. In other words, I don't see any point in being dogmatic about demanding Green registration. Didn't most of y'all support Ralph Nader, who has never been a Green Party member?
cheers,
BobM
On 3/26/18 14:35, Steve Breedlove 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] 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/20180327/f44bc43f/attachment.html>