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

Tue Mar 27 15:51:27 PDT 2018

Steven and other Greens,

I want to make one thing crystal clear because I have seen this theme

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:29 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
wrote:

> James Young,
> I'm not sure.
> I don't have a party identity.  I am a Green if people ask. I do some
> stuff on behalf of the Green Party. I do a lot of political work outside
> the party structure. As do most of us. Accordingly, I think it is
> appropriate to use an endorsement as a tool in our electoral toolbox.
> I see so much hyperbole against this proposal as if we cease to exist if
> we endorse outside our juvenile tribal label. And it is all hyperbole.
> Because this proposal creates the ability to endorse individuals. It is not
> an obligation to endorse and it will still require a vote of the assembly.
> Meaning it isn't a blank check. But as of right now we can't even ENTERTAIN
> the idea of endorsing someone like Gayle. So this proposal ends the
> prohibition of out of party endorsements and lets us consider qualified
> candidate whose values align with ours. It is a simple measure that allows
> us the opportinity, should great nonGreen candidates run, to build
> coalitions, build mutual trust and network so we can build a people's
> movement and end the two party dictatorship,  end the wars and police
> state, etc.
> It's a very simple proposal, Nicole. I suspect intraparty conflict and
> perceptions of dishonesty or underhandedness inform your insistence that
> this proposal is a plot to destroy the party. Maybe not. You know I'm
> always up for a chat.
> Steve
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 1:31 PM 1 <jbrjaw1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Where does anyone find time to review, assess, and/or read the plethora
>> of emails with the novels of info upon them?
>> My god, we really need to start simplifying a bit more...
>>
>> James Young
>> SGA O.C.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 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
>>> <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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180327/362a4b05/attachment.html>