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

[Steve Breedlove]

Jesse, thanks for more concrete evidence of this pattern that plays out all
over the world.
Nicole. I'm personally an anarchist. But I'm involved in electoral politics
which is inherently not an anarchic enterprise. People campaign as Greens
not because they want to disband the state but because they want to use
state power for different ends than it currently serves. And in the CURRENT
POLITICAL CONTEXT, leadership is actually a useful and real concept. I'm
glad you voted your conscience as a delegate. I hope more people see the
utility in this proposal.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 9:27 AM Jesse Townley <jt02 at mindspring.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> 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/20180329/2d8a5ee5/attachment.html>