[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Victoria Ashley
victronix01 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 29 10:10:26 PDT 2018
- Previous message (by thread): [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
- Next message (by thread): [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
>>Secondly, this allows the state Party the *flexibility* that our Counties
& Chapters already have.
That's a great point.
-- Victoria
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:00 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/a6bc2598/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
- Next message (by thread): [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the gpca-votes
mailing list