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

[Jeff Lebow]

Fellow Greens,
Please do the math. We are a small party with the best values. Unfortunately elections are won on votes not necessarily on values. Our only chance, barring some very unexpected circumstances, to see our values held by elected candidates is through coalition building with other left of center parties and people. Regarding having non Greens take our ballot line, the top two election format makes this a moot point. We don’t have a guaranteed statewide election ballot line. I agree with Eric who postulates that should we have a Green in the race, the only circumstance where Greens would support a non Green opponent would be if the Green candidate does no represent Party values. 

Regarding coalition building, how can we ask others to join us in support of our candidate if we are by Bylaw prohibited from backing a non Green progressive? We can be pure and isolated and remain electorally irrelevant for statewide offices. Gayle McLaughlin is an excellent example of why we should not limit ourselves by rule from supporting non Greens. 

I had a Russian bot write this post. Just kidding. 
Jeff Lebow 
OC Green 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 26, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I believe that this would allow us to choose a Peace and Freedom or independent candidate over a Green, but my assessment is that we would only do that if the Green had major problems with positions at odds with our values and platform.
> 
> Eric Brooks
> SF, CA
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of timeka drew
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:35 AM
> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
> 
> 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