Gloria et al, The 2% requirement was changed after the TopTwo measure was passed. It’s more complicated now, as there are two methods for maintaining status in order to stay on the ballot as a party, mainly for Presidential elections. from the CA SoS website: "Maintaining Its Qualified Status * Once qualified, a political party maintains its qualified status by: * Retaining registrants representing at least 1/15 of 1 percent (0.067%) of the total state registration (Elections Code §§ 5101, 5153); *and* * Having one of its statewide candidates (running for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, or United States Senator) receive at least 2 percent of the entire vote of the state for that office at the June 3, 2014, gubernatorial primary election (Elections Code §§ 5100(a), 5151(b)); *or* * Retaining statewide registration equaling at least 0.33 percent of the total number of voters registered on the 154th day before the primary election or the 123rd day before the presidential general election. (Elections Code §§ 5100(b), 5151(c).) “ excerpted from this page at CA Sos site: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/political-party-qualificat... FYI - as of Jan.2, 2018 there were 18,980,481 registered voters state-wide. 0.2% of that = *12,716 *registrants needed, so not a problem for us. However, we would still need to get 2% of the actual voters in the June primary, which by the way, had a RECORD low turnout of only 25% in June 2014. If in June 2018, there is another 25% turnout, then 25% of reg voters is ~4.75M votes, and 2% of that =*94,900 * votes needed for any ONE Green candidate. *OR…* 0.33% of registered voters =* 62,635 *registered Greens required. We appear to have 91,631 as of Jan.2, 2018, so we are probably OK. cheers, Bob
On Feb 18, 2018, at 12:05, Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net <mailto:gloria@extragalactic.net>> wrote:
Am I incorrect in my understanding that we do not need 2% in the Primary? Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com <mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com <mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com <mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com <mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org <mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org <mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse other than petitioning your elected officials and exercising your constitutional rights. See: https://ssd.eff.org/ for solutions.