<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Apparently Mike Feinstein's emails from several hours ago are not
being allowed through to the SGA list. I don't know why.....<br>
<br>
So I am forwarding them so delegates have the benefit of reading
them</p>
<p>Linda<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size:
12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family:
-webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>From:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica
Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mike Feinstein
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mfeinstein@feinstein.org"><mfeinstein@feinstein.org></a><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family:
-webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Subject:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica
Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes]
Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA
Endorsements for General Election Candidates</b><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family:
-webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Date:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica
Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;">March 30, 2018 at 9:26:03
AM PDT<br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family:
-webkit-system-font, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica,
sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>To:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b></span><span
style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, "Helvetica
Neue", Helvetica, sans-serif;">GPCA Discussion List for
SGA Votes <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org"><gpca-votes@sfgreens.org></a><br>
</span></div>
<br>
<div>
<div>Dear fellow Greens<br class="">
<br class="">
I am voting no on this proposal for several reasons, as
explained below.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Background<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from
endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take
no corporate money:<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
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)<br class="">
<br class="">
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”<br class="">
<br class="">
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.<br
class="">
<br class="">
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. <br class="">
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
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%.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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. <br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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.<br
class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">The GPCA wants to help voters
vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no
candidate.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
There is nothing in our party rules or documents that states
this.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">For instance, the Peace and
Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in
state<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
<br class="">
Yet this is what this proposal is based upon?????<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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. <br
class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
So what?<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
So that is the GPCA’s primary responsibility? <br class="">
<br class="">
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%.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">The current endorsement
policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from
endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party
is;<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">in addition, it precludes a
possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots
interest.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">The current endorsement
policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left
unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in
California.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
This is said without substantiation. Another case of reckless
rhetoric in what should be a factually-based background to
this proposal.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Changing the endorsement
policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement
Proportional Representation<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Huh? There is no substantiation for this whatsoever. It is
just said in thin air. .<br class="">
<br class="">
The reality is that the GPCA, Peace & Freedom Party and
the Libertarian Party already work together to advance
proportional representation.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">so that we can have a
multi-party system and not a two-party system.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
????????????<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">By expanding our endorsement
options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions<br
class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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. <br class="">
<br class="">
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.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Additionally many individual Greens work with candidates of
other parties, and on the grassroots level that coalition-work
speaks for itself.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">and will endorse candidates
who have green values, but who choose other political party
affiliations.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Which is a disincentive for them to run Green. If you can get
the milk for free, you won’t buy the cow.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">As it stands, people who want
to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track
record with the Green Party<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Yes, that has happened in the Governor’s race this year with
the two individuals who have made it on the ballot as Greens.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
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?<br
class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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.<br
class="">
<br class="">
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’).<br class="">
<br class="">
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. <br
class="">
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2013-06/2014-election-strategy">http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2013-06/2014-election-strategy</a><br
class="">
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
This is a doubling-down on the party’s 2017 failure to plan
for 2018. <br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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. <br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
So the authors of this proposal are now arguing that we should
be endorsing non-Greens over Greens? <br class="">
<br class="">
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?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br
class="">
<br class="">
This would be an ideal strategy for someone who wanted to
cause the GPCA to lose its ballot status.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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. <br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">Furthermore, it is common
advice in social media,<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
Seriously????? The intellectual foundation of this proposal
is based upon social media ‘likes’????<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
We are a welcoming party to anyone who embraces the Ten Key
Values.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">People want a new party, but
our current restrictive endorsement procedures<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">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.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
If I wanted to infiltrate the Green Party and disembowel it
from within, this is one strategy I would pursue.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">
<br class="">
For all the reasons above, I am voting no.<br class="">
<br class="">
Mike Feinstein<br class="">
SGA Delegate<br class="">
GPLAC<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</body>
</html>