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

[Eric Brooks]

It is important that people understand that anarchism literally means “No Rulers”. It does not mean ‘no governance’. And it does not mean ‘no leaders’. Leaders are an essential part of any social system, including consensus based (anarchist) social systems.

A lot of anarchists take part in electoral politics to advance social decision making toward more consensus based structures.

To the subject at hand, the number one strategy of anarchists, is to reach out to other groups and peoples to help them get what they need to build solidarity and mutual aid with those others. We use this as our number one organizing tool because it works.

And that is why the Green Party needs to reach out to other parties to help them, and to build mutual aid and solidarity with them.

This makes us all stronger in our fight against the corporate parties.

Eric Brooks
SF, CA

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Steve Breedlove
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:18 AM
To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20180329/387cbef6/attachment.html>