[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates

[Linda Piera-Avila]

Apparently Mike Feinstein's emails from several hours ago are not being 
allowed through to the SGA list. I don't know why.....

So I am forwarding them so delegates have the benefit of reading them

Linda

> *From:*Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein at feinstein.org>
> *Subject:**Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy 
> Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates*
> *Date:*March 30, 2018 at 9:26:03 AM PDT
> *To:*GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
>
> Dear fellow Greens
>
> I am voting no on this proposal for several reasons, as explained below.
>
>> Background
>>
>> The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing 
>> candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money:
>
> This is not true. Many Green Party members who are candidates “have 
> good Green values” and “take no corporate money”.  On the county 
> level, they have been endorsed by county Green Parties in down-ticket 
> races.
>
> On the state party level, they used to win our primaries when we had 
> partisan primaries, and since Top Two came in, the GPCA endorsed a 
> slate of such candidates for statewide in 2014. (more about that later)
>
> Clearly the explanatory text for this background text is sloppily 
> written.  Presumably it is meant to say “The GPCA is  currently 
> prohibited from endorsing candidates WHO ARE NOT GREEN PARTY MEMBERS 
> AND who have good Green values and who take no corporate money”
>
> So IF that was what was meant, then there should have been some 
> analysis about this point, that is actually grounded in party facts 
> and past reasoning, to understand why the current policy is what it 
> is, and then argue why it should be changed.
>
> The facts are that under the current policy, many county Green Parties 
> have their own rules about endorsement.  This is a very controversial 
> issue, because giving away the Green Party endorsement creates a 
> disincentive for candidates to run as Greens. For that reason some 
> county Green Parties have decided to endorse down ticket candidates 
> from other parties, and some county parties have not.
>
> One of the reasons the GPCA has left it up to the county parties on 
> this question, is that those races don’t directly affect the GPCA’s 
> ballot status.
>
> But on the state party level, one of the two ways the GPCA retains 
> ballot status is to receive at least 2% in a statewide race - in the 
> general election before Top Two and in the primary election since Top 
> Two.  Because of this, it is in the GPCA’s interest has not been to 
> give away its endorsement to non-Green candidates that don’t help the 
> party receive that 2%; but instead to recruit viable, credible 
> candidates for as many of those seats as possible, in order to give 
> the party the best chance at receiving 2%.
>
>> the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on 
>> endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green 
>> Party name in the public eye.
>
> By itself, this is not reason to change the party’s statewide 
> candidate endorsement policy.  There are dozens if not hundreds of 
> ways of publicizing the GPCA, that don’t have the downsides of 
> discouraging people from running as Greens.
>
>> The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races 
>> where we have no candidate.
>
> There is nothing in our party rules or documents that states this.
>
>> For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green 
>> Party candidates in state
>
> Examples? This is an incredibly reckless and FALSE assertion. The 
> Peace and Freedom Party has NEVER endorsed a statewide Green Party 
> candidate. This was confirmed today to me by a few long time P&F leaders.
>
> Yet this is what this proposal is based upon?????
>
>> and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace 
>> and Freedom candidates.  The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates 
>> with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when 
>> we have no candidate running in the race.
>
> So what?
>
>> The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who 
>> are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad 
>> candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system.
>
> So that is the GPCA’s primary responsibility?
>
> Again, we have left this option for endorsement for down-ticket races, 
> but one reason we don’t get into this on the state party level is that 
> we need credible candidates to run Green to get our 2%.
>
>> The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not 
>> prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state 
>> party is;
>
> That is not confusing, it is a statement of fact.  Obviously the 
> author’s of this proposal were not confused, as they were able to 
> state what the current rule is.
>
>> in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of 
>> grassroots interest.
>
> Yes, because party delegates decided 43-6-2 that it was a bad idea to 
> endorse statewide candidates from other parties, again in part because 
> it is a disincentive to run as a Green if you can get the party’s 
> support without it.
>
>> The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two 
>> era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building 
>> efforts in California.
>
> This is said without substantiation.  Another case of reckless 
> rhetoric in what should be a factually-based background to this proposal.
>
>> Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to 
>> implement Proportional Representation
>
> Huh?  There is no substantiation for this whatsoever. It is just said 
> in thin air. .
>
> The reality is that the GPCA, Peace & Freedom Party and the 
> Libertarian Party already work together to advance proportional 
> representation.
>
>> so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system.
>
> ????????????
>
>> By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we 
>> will work in coalitions
>
> This betrays a lack knowledge of GPCA history with P&F and the 
> Libertarians. For several years, in addition to supporting 
> proportional representation, the three parties have worked together to 
> take common positions and negotiate with the state legislature on 
> several bills, including those that have affected county central 
> committees, and how ballot status is retained under Top Two.
>
> In other words, where we’ve had common interest, we already get 
> together.  In June 2013 there was even a joint meeting of reps from 
> the three parties that followed the Napa GA.
>
> Additionally many individual Greens work with candidates of other 
> parties, and on the grassroots level that coalition-work speaks for 
> itself.
>
>> and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose 
>> other political party affiliations.
>
> Which is a disincentive for them to run Green.  If you can get the 
> milk for free, you won’t buy the cow.
>
>> As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and 
>> yet who have no track record with the Green Party
>
> Yes, that has happened in the Governor’s race this year with the two 
> individuals who have made it on the ballot as Greens.
>
> Does that mean we should endorse Delaine Eastin instead?  She 
> apparently is anti-corporate, as many of the Berniecrat groups have 
> endorsed her.  Why isn’t she on the GPCA SGA ballot?
>
>> or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot 
>> line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even 
>> though they may not be the best candidate.
>
> This reasoning shows an even further lack of knowledge of GPCA 
> history, which is not surprising since it was sponsored by a county 
> party full of people who have no history with the GPCA.
>
> In every election year since 1994 - EXCEPT THIS YEAR - where the 
> statewide constitutional offices were up for election, the GPCA 
> (through the CCWG) conducted an organized outreach plan to identify in 
> advance of the filing period, a credible slate of candidates for 
> statewide office.  Then we would go into the primary season united 
> around that slate, and as a result did not have contested primaries 
> for statewide constitutional office, with only one exception (Gov 
> 2010, when Deacon Alexander ran against Laura Wells, who was the 
> ‘slate choice’).
>
> Under Top Two , the one time we had the statewide constitutional 
> offices up for election before 2018 was in 2014.  Now we we were 
> looking at additional challenges, because the ballot-qualification 
> rules changed under Top Two, making it much harder for Greens to get 
> on the ballot.
>
> The GPCA endorsement process in 2014 was not only predicated on 
> finding a credible slate of Greens for statewide races in general, but 
> doing so in advance of the signature-gathering period so that we could 
> unite around them during the signature-gathering period, get more 
> signatures for each and reduce the cost for them to get on the ballot, 
> and also leave more funds for them to purchase their candidate 
> statements in the Voter Information Guide.  Furthermore the early 
> endorsement would then also make them eligible for GPCA Campaign 
> Support Funding, so they could use that to help purchase more words 
> for their candidate statement in the Voter Information Guide.
>
> http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2013-06/2014-election-strategy
>
> Now what has happened for 2018 is that for the first time in our 
> party’s history, the GPCA has failed this most basic task to have a 
> proactive process to recruit serious candidates (the blame for this 
> colossal failure lies directly with the CCWG and the CC) and instead 
> is opening the door to a policy that will discourage serious 
> candidates from running as Greens, because they can get the Green 
> endorsement anyway.
>
> This is a doubling-down on the party’s 2017 failure to plan for 2018.
>
>> Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which 
>> Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast 
>> as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the 
>> endorsement area is one we can control.
>
> So the authors of this proposal are now arguing that we should be 
> endorsing non-Greens over Greens?
>
> Apparently they want us to pass a policy that encourages people to not 
> run as Greens in the first place, then use that to endorse non-Greens 
> over the people that do choose to run as Greens?
>
> This would be an ideal strategy for someone who wanted to cause the 
> GPCA to lose its ballot status.
>
>> We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only 
>> interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we 
>> share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in 
>> California.
>
> The reason we started the Green Party in the United States was that 
> there were millions of people who had green values, but not a 
> political party based upon them.  We want candidates to decide this is 
> a party worth running in. It is hard enough already to get viable, 
> credible candidates to decide to run as Greens. This strategy 
> undermines the reason for people to run as Greens in races where we 
> keep ballot status.
>
>> Furthermore, it is common advice in social media,
>
> Seriously?????  The intellectual foundation of this proposal is based 
> upon social media ‘likes’????
>
>> for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and 
>> friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you 
>> stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, 
>> not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” 
>> while we display an unwelcoming attitude.
>
> We are a welcoming party to anyone who embraces the Ten Key Values.
>
>> People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement 
>> procedures
>
> I have been involved with this party since 1988, have registered 
> thousands of people as Greens, have been the state party clearinghouse 
> coordinator, have answered the party’s phones and emails, and have 
> been a party spokesperson and an elected Green to public office.  In 
> all of those roles and more, I don’t recall a single example of a 
> person saying they were interested in the Green Party who asked about 
> our endorsement policy for non-Greens, and/or for whom that was a 
> ‘deal breaker’ in any sense of the word.
>
>> make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big 
>> tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances.
>
> NGOs like the Sierra Club or the League of Conservation Voters (or 
> others) are big tents for people with green values.  Political parties 
> are different organs, they are partisan and have to do with electoral 
> strategy. People who are green values are found in many political 
> parties, for various different strategic reasons. Unless we convince 
> people to be registered Greens and run as Green candidates, we fall 
> off the ballot and are no longer an option for people with green 
> values.  This proposal to change our party’s endorsement procedure 
> makes it easier for people to get a Green Party ‘seal of approval’ and 
> not join our party and not run as Greens.
>
> If I wanted to infiltrate the Green Party and disembowel it from 
> within, this is one strategy I would pursue.
>
> For all the reasons above, I am voting no.
>
> Mike Feinstein
> SGA Delegate
> GPLAC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180330/2d455b22/attachment.html>