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

[C. A. B.]

I share your concern regarding factionalism and the possibility that we may endorse non-Greens over Greens.  My earlier comments expressing my concern about divisiveness were made because I  worry that personality conflicts are far more responsible for the dissension within the Green Party than are ideological differences between individuals/candidates.  So my feelings are mixed on this issue.  I believe alliances are vital, both with other parties like P&F and other leftist groups like Socialist Alternative, etc., and I also think we need a policy that minimizes internal conflict, builds solidarity within our party, and incentivizes running as a Green. P&F only endorses Greens when it does not have a P&F candidate running in the same race; making this a mandate is one way to at least settle the question of whether or not we might endorse non-Greens over Greens.

On 3/26/2018 2:25 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
As I understand it, so long as the Democratic Party itself receives "corporate" funding, even a "good Democrat" (Bernie Sanders, for example, or Congressperson Ro Khanna in my area) that refuses corporate donations would not be eligible to be endorsed.

There is nothing in the language of the proposal itself to prohibit endorsing multiple candidates for office (even though many of those advocating for it are seemingly against that idea), or mandating a preference for Green candidates over others. Given the party's history of factionalism, I can total see a scenario in which the faction dominant at the time winds endorsing a P&F or NPP candidate over a genuine Green in disfavor with them, or the party winds up in a knock down dragged out fight over endorsement a la Nader 2004.

That said, this is not likely to be a frequent scenario, although I do agree that the net effect is to somewhat decrease the incentive to remain a Green when running for higher office instead of registering NPP. This effect increases as the value of an endorsement from the Green Party increases. So, yes, we're effectively slitting our own throats at some level here... I honestly don't see how we gain anything of substance via alliance with the P&F party, with whom we actually compete for voter registrations and donations, and which is even less organized and less resourceful than we are. But, maybe there is some benefit... a NPP candidate advertising our endorsement might be free publicity.

But... given that local county parties have and will continue to endorse non-Greens on a regular basis, and the limited number of potential outside endorsements, and the limited benefit this provides to any candidate, and the fact that this requires a vote and that we can expect limited financial and other resources to be prioritized to races in which actual Greens are running... and that we can reverse the policy at will if it winds up being counterproductive.

Given all that, this is more symbolic than substantive, and that some people strongly feel that there is value of a statement of solidarity between non-corporate parties (even if the other party is statist, and thus ideologically opposed to core Green principles), I'm willing to stand aside.

Thomas Leavitt

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 12:05 PM timeka drew <timekadrew at gmail.com<mailto:timekadrew at gmail.com>> wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb5e7da64695a463dddf008d593877798%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636577132394161330&sdata=ajm41p6VhAYwug1XDobmswaMONBF10aMxavxV1OxMiA%3D&reserved=0>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180327/192679c5/attachment.html>