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

Sat Mar 31 12:00:57 PDT 2018

Thanks Linda!

I agree with you, too! At a time when we are teetering into obscurity and
towards the threat of losing ballot access, it seems irresponsible to be
taking such a risk when there is no emergency which would drive us to be so
desperate.  We should be taking careful consideration with the things
you’ve mentioned specifically- what our potential endorsees are doing and
endorsing are a reflection of our stances and policies as well. And in an
example of this playing out- if we endorse someone we are referring voters
to them. In turn, they refer voters to a candidate of a corporate party,
this hurts us!

-N

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 9:37 AM <lindap_a at verizon.net> wrote:

> I agree with you, Nicole!
>
> So, 155 proposes that we may endorse candidates who support Green values
> and who don't take corporate donations even if they are not registered
> Green.
> Everyone seems to assume that automatically excludes endorsing a Democrat
> as they are a "corporate party."
>
> But then, what if said independent candidate, endorsed by the Green Party,
> in turn endorses a Democrat instead of a Green?
> Where is our integrity? How do we reconcile this inconsistency?  Aren't we
> then indirectly endorsing a Democrat, a corporate party candidate?
> What message does that send to left leaning voters?
>
> Also, again, we Greens "give up" an endorsement to a non Green who in turn
> does not reciprocate, but instead endorses a Democrat.
> I don't see how that is building our Green Party, nor promoting our
> values; in fact, it seems to do the opposite.
>
> Linda
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
> Sent: Wed, Mar 28, 2018 4:10 pm
> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150,
> 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
>
> Re Steve
>
> I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and straight-forward
> proposal. I’m not sure where the impression of “fear” comes from, as I’m
> using good old fashioned logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal
> does not take much of anything into account. It seems like a rash and
> impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. The arguments I’ve seen for
> it seem to be emotion-based and naively enthusiastic about the possible
> outcomes.
>
> The specific language is the part where the word, “Green,” disappears in
> reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP at
> the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to
> promote GREEN PARTY. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to
> grasp.
>
> I’ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next voting
> period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good
> candidates in a way which doesn’t defeat our purpose in being a legitimate
> political party.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception?  It seems to
> be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to
> know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never
> intended to be  our main objective and I don't believe it is written as
> such.
>
> On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steven & others,
>
> What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open
> for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having
> our main objective to be to support greens except in specific
> circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is
> how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political
> party.
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Nicole. Right now We CAN  NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We
> are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE
> BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate
> in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY
> obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic
> decision.
> What in the language makes you think otherwise?
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris at bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
>
> We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And
> it might even be in their ballot statement.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional
> Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect
> and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that
> possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to
> empower an effective organizing coalition.
>
> The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with
> others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
>
> That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
>
> Eric Brooks
> SF, CA
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org
> <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor
>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM
>
> *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <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
>
> Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing
> along with other parties right now?
>
> If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional
> Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
>
> Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our
> bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to
> Proportional Representation?
>
> Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to
> give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing
> non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through
> legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
>
> -N
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because
> in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and
> others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and
> activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our
> relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
>
> Eric Brooks
> SF, CA
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Nicole Castor
>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM
>
> *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <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
>
> It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional
> representation to sell this proposal.
>
>
> If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain
> time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass
> specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition
> for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific
> office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no
> direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
>
> Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a
> People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning
> into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses
> its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations,
> “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot”
> because of respect to diversity and differences.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
>
> http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
>
>
> As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises
> which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in
> the process.
>
> Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party
> takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
>
> If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically
> instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve
> mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it
> and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
>
> There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this
> which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political
> party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
>
> -N
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Erik,
>
> The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to
> provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform
> (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political
> alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both
> capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of
> voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other
> than self-defense, both fascism and the
> violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are
> myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct
> differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes
> manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion)
> between Green and conventional "left" politics.
>
> I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist
> who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let
> alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with
> conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where
> ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state
> violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for
> existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
>
> Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one
> single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens
> upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have
> historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have
> gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that
> combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral
> representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
>
> As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes
> sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the
> distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical
> allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away
> from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is.
> The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own
> ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
>
> On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party,
> nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist
> left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly
> have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and
> factionalized American statist left doing so.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Leavitt
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
>
> The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The
> GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for
> both.
>
> Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is
> that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional
> Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with
> the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the
> anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional
> Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their
> own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty
> system(Proportional Representation)
>
> For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than
> you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist
> Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and
> Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African
> People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for
> a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
>
> If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all
> these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat.
> Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is
> currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support
> such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an
> NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party
> endorsement.
>
> Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political
> pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad
> variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those
> from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources
> that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party
> candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional
> situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party
> endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to
> approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens,
> simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
>
> Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist
> Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party
> specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are
> anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed
> to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to
> attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our
> banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are
> incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image
> problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Leavitt
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image
> problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent
> or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party
> dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to
> endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another
> left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on
> actual policy or on perception of viability.
> I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People
> already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are
> running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice
> dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
>
> On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion
> either!!  i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is
> better able to  articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a at verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate
> donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the
> incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard
> enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this
> will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could
> leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their
> own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small
> party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not
> give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
> Linda Piera-Avila
> Santa Monica
> PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal
> on my own!
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion
> that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA
> ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
>
> Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green
> candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate
> donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform,
> items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for
> those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
>
> I hope this clears up any confusion.
>
> Eric Brooks
> SGA Vote Administrator
>
> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org
> <gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM
> *To:* gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment:
> GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
>
> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-
> <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>votes at sfgreens.org <votes at sfgreens.org>*
>
> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
>
> Ranked Choice Vote ID #155
> Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for
> General Election Candidates*
> Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura
> Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
> Discussion  02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
> Voting  03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
> Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
>
> *Background*
>
> The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing
> candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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.  The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates,
> even in races where we have no candidate.  For instance, the Peace and
> Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state 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.  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.
> The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not
> prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party
> is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of
> grassroots interest.  The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the
> pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble
> party-building efforts in California.
>
> Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to
> implement 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 and will endorse
> candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party
> affiliations.  As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the
> ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party 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.  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.  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.
>
> Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, 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.
> People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures
> 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. It looks like
> we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow
> “sectarian” view of how change happens.
>
> Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement
> Policy.
>
> *Proposal*
>
> That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
>
> That the policy be amended from its current text:
>
> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the
> GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
>
> 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates
> who are not Green Party members.
>
> To read as follow:
>
> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
>
> 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate
> campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts
> corporate campaign contributions.
>
> Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party
> of Yolo County.
>
> Full details will be available at:
> http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
>
> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>*
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
>
> *Erik Rydberg *
> *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
>
> *erikrydberg34 at gmail.com <erikrydberg34 at gmail.com> 530-781-2903*
>
>                 cagreens.org
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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
>
> -- 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/20180331/03d3aa97/attachment.html>