X-Envelope-From: X-Envelope-To: Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com (unknown) by localhost (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTPS id w2VKsXuV023530 Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:54:34 -0700 (envelope-from ); Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id z8-v6so10197922oix.2 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pn0Tgr95DQVi8+iugwE7cCOmPRNzOKHm4NyBYVfpihk=; b=t1B7mcO+7zUF7JgbhoBKodF1eLEFW1NdsnI9y99o0jMBLAAGsLS6dIdIXLhv2GJFrd Vfhdw3AvuNyfrnDBQQclq1EPHoVKbMBe4jnuBeSgpXGnIsKvuMMKUVmP6AVilGYQyvcT mV62hpzVzzQeRR6TApFStg1lv4EOqASuBILNdOLXUgzwgkuKQmQoRj50zRsf2P/giEiH Mn52HuF3UQH5i3W6GE6dEsZa21mXAzeMjP1jQapsTt3GqkxWni0ziclvFEEkukofnDfF Yoq+cI5De1O8NVktujNG679YL7FssxgKAuMsMTpsmt49Kd/XzDLkAmLPFnYTFQmgBJLs PMFA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=pn0Tgr95DQVi8+iugwE7cCOmPRNzOKHm4NyBYVfpihk=; b=T8p791hziWVfyswfs9VDQ6B1LIHXW/1sLwhThVx3McIRLXyZIJn3pYS5rrza7ULyvk HZqJB+78zN2wm+arx/7L6aAN9MGH9Jl+iz8GEb94dAzxG5uHMiTurY1PaRiqz9jnmlWy uZ1oBQlFRnObHTK9m03fQ+3PRGoFPfkkBwx0ZBA0dw+lnbn8x2Q/WyMulmPbrT3IZ+Mt PJFHugnwdkyzMJsG3a+zI0y2huxOM9H/VeX48gSgYyWhQKHTgiDDnYu+0MB+q/nmQv0+ BG85juk0fU0CfJLXfOYkt4LVSmtEzvBAR0ATZnc/yYE5ilDPF9MpL8ahCa7tbc31rLFg 9zWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FENJFDXRjDfIGAa3DCHgHOe6CjG+8Zsziqs9sbUCBnegg459H2 akiO6F1+tWwCnDBEapByax4NpgmqsxpFqV6oJSBsHw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: =?utf-8?q?AIpwx4+g7MXBaHTXgz60DjBe/oqaWT9hVxj2+d5p1VRJ?= =?utf-8?q?JxBQaS9xbFkdnqlqEUw3uMP78ufcVVJLwjOIfwsKcwm2HfU=3D?= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ed08:: with SMTP id l8-v6mr2077148oih.39.1522524508580; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:28:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.201.5.37 with HTTP; Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:27:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1627cd602b9-c87-2588@webjas-vae044.srv.aolmail.net> From: Victoria Ashley Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 12:27:58 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007ef1a90568ba5ce1" X-Greylist: Delayed for 01:25:59 by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (gateway [0.0.0.0]); Sat, 31 Mar 2018 13:54:35 -0700 (PDT) --0000000000007ef1a90568ba5ce1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>Where is our integrity? To me, integrity is supporting progressives who are already supporting us, like Gayle McLaughlin and the Peace & Freedom Party Of California, who have already endorsed Green Party candidates like Jason Kishineff for the June election. -- Victoria On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Nicole Castor wrote: > 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=E2=80=99ve mentioned specifically- what our potential endorsees are d= oing 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 voter= s > 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 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 Democra= t >> 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 >> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion >> 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=E2=80=99m not sure where the impression of = =E2=80=9Cfear=E2=80=9D >> comes from, as I=E2=80=99m 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=E2=80=99ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively >> enthusiastic about the possible outcomes. >> >> The specific language is the part where the word, =E2=80=9CGreen,=E2=80= =9D disappears in >> reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP a= t >> the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to >> promote GREEN PARTY. I don=E2=80=99t know why this is such a difficult c= oncept to >> grasp. >> >> I=E2=80=99ve 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=E2=80=99t defeat our purpose in being a = legitimate >> political party. >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove >> wrote: >> >> Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems t= o >> 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" >> wrote: >> >> Steven & others, >> >> What I=E2=80=99m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules alw= ays open >> for non green endorsements as if it=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99re not a coalition, we are a poli= tical >> party. >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove >> wrote: >> >> Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. W= e >> are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a C= ASE >> BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candida= te >> 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 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 wrote: >> >> There isn=E2=80=99t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proport= ional >> Representation, precisely because we haven=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99s what this Bylaws change is all about. >> >> Eric Brooks >> SF, CA >> >> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor >> >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM >> >> *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion >> >> >> *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 ou= r >> 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 >> 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. Ri= ght >> now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm=E2= =80=99s >> length. >> >> Eric Brooks >> SF, CA >> >> *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf >> Of *Nicole Castor >> >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM >> >> *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion >> >> >> *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 petitio= n >> 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=E2=80=99s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up= turning >> into a =E2=80=9CMelting Pot=E2=80=9D of ideology where each distinct par= ty involved loses >> its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, >> =E2=80=9CMulti-Culturalism,=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CCultural Pluralism is b= etter than =E2=80=9CMelting Pot=E2=80=9D >> 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=E2=80=99t have to forfeit our unique party ide= ntity 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=E2=80=99= ve >> mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does = it >> and it=E2=80=99s 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 politic= al >> party. For this reason, I=E2=80=99m voting NO on this proposal. >> >> -N >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt >> 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 ref= orm >> (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent politic= al >> 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 othe= r >> 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 (someti= mes >> 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 wh= ere >> ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state >> violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification f= or >> 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 dozen= s >> 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 make= s >> 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-statis= t >> 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 wrote: >> >> We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform. >> >> The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. Th= e >> GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room fo= r >> 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 o= ur >> doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install >> Proportional Representation those that aren=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9CGreen Eno= ugh=E2=80=9D will be free >> to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a tru= e >> multiparty system(Proportional Representation) >> >> For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian =E2=80=9CI=E2=80= =99m better than >> you.=E2=80=9D arrogance... it=E2=80=99s not a good look for us. You want= to bash Capitalist >> Liberal Democrats? I=E2=80=99m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Pea= ce and >> Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African >> People=E2=80=99s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Mo= vement for >> a People=E2=80=99s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move. >> >> If we don=E2=80=99t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bri= ng all >> these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. >> Opening our doors isn=E2=80=99t the danger... closing them is. >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche >> 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 >> 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 supp= ort >> 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 broa= d >> variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as thos= e >> from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resour= ces >> 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 oppos= ed >> 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 >> 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 independ= ent >> or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two par= ty >> 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 anoth= er >> 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 a= re >> running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justic= e >> dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. >> >> On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" 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 >> wrote: >> >> If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn=E2=80=99t take corp= orate >> donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the >> incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It=E2=80=99= s hard >> enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, t= his >> will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this coul= d >> 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 sm= all >> party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and no= t >> 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 proposa= l >> on my own! >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> In response to Michael Feinstein=E2=80=99s previous emails stating the o= pinion >> that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA >> ballot, Michael=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99s values and pla= tform, >> 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@sfgreens.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM >> *To:* gpca-votes@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- >> votes@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: t= he >> 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 n= ame >> in the public eye. The >> >> ... > > [Message clipped] > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes > > --0000000000007ef1a90568ba5ce1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>Where is our integrity?

To me, integrity is supporting p= rogressives who are already supporting us, like Gayle McLaughlin and the=C2= =A0Peace & Freedom Party Of California,=C2=A0who hav= e already endorsed Green Party candidates like Jason Kishineff for the June= election.

-- Victoria

On Sat,= Mar 31, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Linda!=C2=A0

I = agree with you, too! At a time when we are teetering into obscurity and tow= ards the threat of losing ballot access, it seems irresponsible to be takin= g such a risk when there is no emergency which would drive us to be so desp= erate.=C2=A0 We should be taking careful consideration with the things you= =E2=80=99ve 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 vote= rs to them. In turn, they refer voters to a candidate of a corporate party,= this hurts us!=C2=A0
<= div dir=3D"auto">
-N

I agree with you, Nicole!

So, 155 proposes that we may endorse candidates who support Green values an= d who don't take corporate donations even if they are not registered Gr= een.
Everyone seems to assume that automatically excludes endorsing a Democ= rat as they are a "corporate party."

But then, what if said independent candidate, endorsed by the Green Pa= rty, in turn endorses a Democrat instead of a Green?
Where is our integrity? How do we reconcile this inconsistency?=C2=A0 = Aren't we then indirectly endorsing a Democrat, a corporate party candi= date?
What message does that send to left leaning voters?

Also, again, we Greens "give up" an endorsement to a non Gre= en who in turn does not reciprocate, but instead endorses a Democrat.
I don't see how that is building our Green Party, nor promoting ou= r values; in fact, it seems to do the opposite.

Linda


--= ---Original Message-----
From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>
To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
Sent: Wed, Mar 28, 2018 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 15= 1, 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=E2=80=99m not sure where the impression of = =E2=80=9Cfear=E2=80=9D comes from, as I=E2=80=99m using good old fashioned = logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal does not take much of any= thing into account. It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a tempor= ary circumstance. The arguments I=E2=80=99ve seen for it seem to be emotion= -based and naively enthusiastic about the possible outcomes.=C2=A0

The specific language is the part where the word, =E2=80= =9CGreen,=E2=80=9D disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green = Party. Anyone involved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels ar= e volunteering their time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don=E2=80=99t know why = this is such a difficult concept to grasp.=C2=A0

I=E2=80=99ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that d= uring the next voting period, a better proposal comes which would enable us= to help good candidates in a way which doesn=E2=80=99t defeat our purpose = in being a legitimate political party.




On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbree= dlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception?=C2=A0 It = seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely wa= nt to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never= intended to be=C2=A0 our main objective and I don't believe it is writ= ten as such.
=
=
On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, &= quot;Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> = wrote:
Steven & others,=C2=A0

What I=E2=80=99m saying is the proposal is asking to leav= e our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it=E2=80=99s our m= ain objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens= except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefr= ont because this is how we represent our party. We=E2=80=99re not a coaliti= on, we are a political party.=C2=A0
<= /div>
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbre= edlove@gmail.com> wrote:
<= /div>
Nicole. Right now We CAN=C2=A0 NOT make specific exceptio= ns for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it l= et 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/d= emocratic decision.=C2=A0
What in the language makes you think otherwise?

=
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbr= oadway.org> wrote:
<= /blockquote>
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. A= nd it might even be in their ballot statement.



Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.= com> wrote:

=
There isn=E2= =80=99t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Represent= ation, precisely because we haven=E2=80=99t built nearly enough respect and= interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our con= nections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective o= rganizing coalition.

The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with = others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.

That=E2=80=99s what this Bylaws change is all about.

Eric Brooks
SF, CA
=C2=A0
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes= -bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM
=
To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@s= fgreens.org>
=
=
=

Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, = 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Offic= e
<= div class=3D"m_-1160656872037789973m_-4539029221318712436aolmail_gmail_quot= e">
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passin= g along with other parties right now?=C2=A0
=C2=A0
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Repre= sentation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
=C2=A0
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 t= o Proportional Representation?
=C2=A0
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts t= o give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsi= ng non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through l= egislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
=C2=A0
-N
=C2=A0
=
<= /div>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@ho= tmail.com> wrote:
=
<= /div>
Proportional Representation= is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer sol= idarity 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 p= arties is too ad hoc and arm=E2=80=99s length.
<= /div>
<= div>
Eric Brooks=
SF, CA
=C2=A0
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes= -bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor
=
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM
=
=
To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discus= sion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>=
=
<= /blockquote>

Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, = 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Offic= e
=
=
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional re= presentation to sell this proposal.=C2=A0
<= /div>
<= div>
=C2=A0
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 sp= ecific 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 be= cause such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation = like proportional representation.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a Peop= le=E2=80=99s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turnin= g into a =E2=80=9CMelting Pot=E2=80=9D of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is wh= y in regards to race relations, =E2=80=9CMulti-Culturalism,=E2=80=9D or =E2= =80=9CCultural Pluralism is better than =E2=80=9CMelting Pot=E2=80=9D becau= se of respect to diversity and differences.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises = which we agree on. We don=E2=80=99t have to forfeit our unique party identi= ty in the process.
=C2=A0
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party = takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.=C2=A0=
=C2=A0
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically ins= tead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I=E2=80=99ve men= tioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it=E2=80=99s a good example of what w= e could propose.
=C2=A0
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this whi= ch is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political par= ty. For this reason, I=E2=80=99m voting NO on this proposal.
=C2=A0
-N
=C2=A0
<= /blockquote>
<= /div>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavit= t@gmail.com> wrote:
<= /div>
<= /div>
Erik,
=C2=A0
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to pr= ovide 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 &= quot;left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownersh= ip 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 myri= ad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differ= ences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances= elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" = politics.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
I ran for City C= ouncil jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the = Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party).=C2=A0We 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 distinctio= ns that make us unique.
=C2=A0
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one si= ngle national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upo= n dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable i= nability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the gener= al American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membershi= p and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
=C2=A0
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 di= stinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to no= t make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of polit= ical ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren&#= 39;t going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
=C2=A0
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, n= ationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist le= ft 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 d= oing so.
=C2=A0
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
<= /blockquote>
=
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.= com> wrote:
<= /div>
<= /div>
=
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
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.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp i= s that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportiona= l Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every s= tate. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist l= eft... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren=E2=80=99= t =E2=80=9CGreen Enough=E2=80=9D will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty syst= em(Proportional Representation)
=C2=A0
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian =E2=80=9CI=E2=80= =99m better than you.=E2=80=9D arrogance... it=E2=80=99s not a good look fo= r us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I=E2=80=99m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Pro= gressive Independent Party, African People=E2=80=99s Socialist Party, Party= for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People=E2=80=99s Party or Cor= porate Free Independents is a bad move.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
If we don=E2=80=99t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to brin= g all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat.= Opening our doors isn=E2=80=99t the danger... closing them is.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
<= /div>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gm= ail.com> wrote:
<= /blockquote>
<= /blockquote>
<= blockquote class=3D"m_-1160656872037789973m_-4539029221318712436aolmail_gma= il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef= t:1ex">
=
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.

Sent from my iPhone
=
<= /div>
<= div>
<= div>

On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gma= il.com> wrote:
=
<= /blockquote>
<= /div>
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.
=C2=A0
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pra= gmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad vari= ety 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 res= erved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed i= n 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 th= at valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the= quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
=C2=A0
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alter= native, 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, ideo= logically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We a= re never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to ru= n under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventio= nal statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of= genuine ideological differences.
=C2=A0
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
=
<= /blockquote>
=
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedl= ove@gmail.com> wrote:
=
<= /div>
<= /div>
=
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image probl= em and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or S= ocialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form allia= nces. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather e= ndorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candida= te that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.=C2=A0=C2=A0<= /div>
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 co= ngress.
=
=
= <= /div>
=
<= div>
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarls= berg@gmail.com> wrote:
<= /blockquote>
<= /div>
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me = to write my opinion either!!=C2=A0 i have my own mind on these issues, but = sometimes someone else is better able to=C2=A0 articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
=
<= /div>
<= /div>
<= blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in= 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-b= ottom:5.0pt">
=
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap= _a@verizon.net> wrote:
<= /div>
<= /div>
=
=
=
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn=E2=80=99t take corpo= rate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the in= centive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It=E2=80=99s 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 o= ur 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 t= he store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.=C2=A0
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal= on my own!=C2=A0
<= /blockquote>
<= /blockquote>
<= /div>
<= /div>
=
=C2=A0
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.= com> wrote:
Hi all,

In response to Michael Feinstein=E2=80=99s previous emails stating the opin= ion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SG= A ballot, Michael=E2=80=99s statements are incorrect.

Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidate= s for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and= are supportive to the Green Party=E2=80=99s 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.<= br>
I hope this clears up any confusion.

Eric Brooks
SGA Vote Administrator
=C2=A0
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes= -bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM
To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendme= nt: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates<= /div>
=C2=A0
P= lease send your discussion comments to=C2=A0gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
=C2= =A0
Disc= ussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
=C2=A0
Ranked Choice Vote ID #155
Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Can= didates
Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wel= ls, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
Discussion=C2=A0 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
Voting=C2=A0 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
=C2=A0
Background=C2=A0
=C2=A0
The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing cand= idates 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 w= ay to get the Green Party name in the public eye.=C2=A0 The
<= /div>...

[Message clippe= d]=C2=A0=C2=A0
--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/= mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes


--0000000000007ef1a90568ba5ce1--