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

Tue Mar 27 20:30:44 PDT 2018

No one is proposing that we endorse a "Justice Democrat", or a Libertarian.
That is not on the table. This proposal specifically excludes that
possibility.

However, individual county parties are free to endorse, or not, as they see
fit, using whatever process they define.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:32 PM, 1 <jbrjaw1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI: Congress is about making deals, so I we endorse a Justice Dem, after
> we've already missed the mark, then if that JD
> signs a commitment in blood with their soul saying they will do everything
> within their power to open the door as far
> as possible to allow 3rd Party's to come in, and Overturn Citizens Untied
> along with Mcutcheon v. FEC, then they should be
> worthy, or we just going to exile ourselves at every turn?
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:08 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/s
>>>> ga_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
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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/20180327/81264178/attachment.html>