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

[Jesse Townley]

Hmm, you may have missed my comments in favor that were directly based on real-life election successes here in Berkeley, CA. I sent them a couple days ago.

More points NOT based in "supposition, assumptions, faith, etc.”:
We’ve had elected Green Party members on the City Council and the Rent Board since the early 1990s in part because of cross-endorsements and coalition-building with like-minded non-Greens. 

Our local County Council and our city’s Chapter has always cross-endorsed, and our Green Voting Guide is a vital source of information for a broad swath of local progressives and leftists. Because we discuss candidates and propositions fully, including highlighting non-Green candidates, we are seen as a realistic & viable option to the Big $$$ parties & candidates. This is KEY to our on-going electoral success with the majority non-Green electorate.

Secondly, this allows the state Party the flexibility that our Counties & Chapters already have. Why restrict our options? There’s nothing here that mandates cross-endorsements.

Yours,
Jesse Townley
Berkeley Rent Board, current member & former Chair, 2008-present
Alameda County Green

> On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO. 
> 
> -N