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

[Nicole Castor]

What Jesse is talking about is at the local level. Sac Greens also work
closely with our local alternative parties, as I have mentioned several
times throughout these threads. The big difference between local & state is
that local is more focused, smaller, and does not generally have the same
faction problems the state has.

We make decisions on a case by case basis and as a smaller group, we are
able to focus more intently on specifics than the state would at broader
level.  We don’t have a broad, open policy and we’re also not such a large
representation of the party in general. As such, people can see an example
of us working cooperatively with other groups & parties without getting the
impression that Green Party is not its own political party. If this were
implemented at the state level- this is the impression it would have.

The other thing about local involvement with other parties and groups is
that Sac Greens are generally not seeing people join up with the GP as a
result of our coalitions. The purpose of our associations is to get
specific tasks accomplished. This has very little bearing on registration
at the local level but could definitely have a negative impact when applied
on a larger scale. There are many things we could focus on with non voters,
for example, without weakening our party identity and giving the impression
that we exist to help others get elected rather than having a solid
foundation in our own party and values.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:06 AM Victoria Ashley <victronix01 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> >>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
>>
>
> --
> 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/f5e82248/attachment.html>