Now that June has clarified that the GPCA has the ability to endorse multiple candidates, should they prove capable of gaining the support of 2/3rds of the SGA, which I think is in alignment with our values, I think the nature of this debate is now substantially different, and that most folks, assuming the context is reasonable, would be o.k. with an endorsement process proceeding. As a suggestion, maybe amending the Proposal to have the endorsement process go into effect AFTER this upcoming election cycle is completed, i.e., no short turn around endorsements this time around, would alleviate concerns and lead to greater support of the measure and less conflict? Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Greens,
Regarding Thomas' most recent entry on this thread:
Thank you for the well-thought-out analysis of the situation. This entry is the reality check needed!
One concern is that registration can and likely will decline due to circumstances beyond the control of Green "leadership." In the next Presidential primary, a "progressive" Dem could wipe out a great deal of our registration, and we will struggle just to play catch-up afterward.
As our registration declines, obtaining 2% becomes more difficult. The strategy of putting all efforts behind single candidates for seats is not illogical, but should have been inplimented sooner, to echo what Thomas writes.
Re: Jeff's entry:
This proposal is not meant to decide who will be on the ballot. The candidates running have already put forth effort and it is likely multiple Greens will be on the same seat ticket on the primary nallot.
The SGA vote is to decide which of these candidates has gained the state party's endorsement.
This only has the effect of displaying to voters which candidates the GPCA recommends. What CA voters don't know is that the endorsement would actually be representing which candidates successfully campaigned the SGA, specifically.
It's too late, at this point, to effect such a strategy in a democratic way. I'd urge SGA voters to recognize this and vote NO on the endorsement strategy or abstain if they are unsure.
-N On Feb 17, 2018 9:23 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Totally agree that we place the most likely to garner public support candidate on the ballot. When playing the game, we should choose the strategy that keeps us on the ballot.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote.
We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in office ever.
Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This endorsement process is long overdue.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <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> 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> 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) 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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.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