Electing SGA Delegates (was RE: Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor)
In San Francisco we select our SGA delegates by consensus. I would assume all of the other counties have a similar process to consense on, or at least vote for, their SGA delegates. The SGA is really just an electronic GA. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Genevieve Marcus Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 11:07 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor If the SGA members were elected they would be no different than the GA. Genevieve Marcus On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com<mailto:lordwandajean@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Nassim, For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here. However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t. Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not. I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago. And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane). ☺ Wanda From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri@gmail.com<mailto:nassim1nouri@gmail.com>> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Date: Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties. Shouldn’t all SGA delegates bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input? We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well. It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate. Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative? If so, why participate in votes as delegates? Nassim Nouri Santa Clara County On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens. On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net<mailto:gloria@extragalactic.net>> wrote: I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com<mailto:sbohac@yahoo.com>> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192<tel:%28619%29%20218-3192>
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"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 Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, 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<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co<http://www.venturacountygreenparty.co> m greenpartyvc@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co<http://www.venturacountygreenparty.co> m greenpartyvc@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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 -- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
Is there a page that has a list of everything that will be voted on? I'd like to share that with my county council to get there input. Also, what are the dates for SGA voting. When does the discussion period end and voting begin, etc? I'd like to add that to the GPCA Calendar. Thanks, Brett Brett Anthony Dixon <https://www.brettanthonydixon.com/> b@brettanthonydixon.com 760-299-3037 On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
In San Francisco we select our SGA delegates by consensus.
I would assume all of the other counties have a similar process to consense on, or at least vote for, their SGA delegates.
The SGA is really just an electronic GA.
Eric Brooks
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Genevieve Marcus *Sent:* Monday, February 19, 2018 11:07 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
If the SGA members were elected they would be no different than the GA.
Genevieve Marcus
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nassim,
For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here.
However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t.
Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not.
I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago.
And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane).
☺
Wanda
*From: *gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> *Reply-To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Date: *Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM *To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject: *Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties.
Shouldn’t all SGA delegates
bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input?
We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well.
It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to
participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate.
Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative?
If so, why participate in votes as delegates?
Nassim Nouri
Santa Clara County
On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson < chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"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 Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < 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> 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> 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> 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- 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
-- 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
--
*"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 *
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Great question Brett – and me too – I’d like to request the same thing for sharing with my County Council. Wanda From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Brett Dixon <b@brettanthonydixon.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Electing SGA Delegates (was RE: Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor) Is there a page that has a list of everything that will be voted on? I'd like to share that with my county council to get there input. Also, what are the dates for SGA voting. When does the discussion period end and voting begin, etc? I'd like to add that to the GPCA Calendar. Thanks, Brett Brett Anthony Dixon b@brettanthonydixon.com 760-299-3037 On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: In San Francisco we select our SGA delegates by consensus. I would assume all of the other counties have a similar process to consense on, or at least vote for, their SGA delegates. The SGA is really just an electronic GA. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Genevieve Marcus Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 11:07 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor If the SGA members were elected they would be no different than the GA. Genevieve Marcus On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Nassim, For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here. However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t. Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not. I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago. And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane). ☺ Wanda From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties. Shouldn’t all SGA delegates bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input? We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well. It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate. Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative? If so, why participate in votes as delegates? Nassim Nouri Santa Clara County On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens. On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"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 Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <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> 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> 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> 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- 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
-- 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 -- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 -- 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
Do a search of your email for ‘Save this email’ — the very first SGA email has the links. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote:
Great question Brett – and me too – I’d like to request the same thing for sharing with my County Council.
Wanda
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Brett Dixon <b@brettanthonydixon.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Electing SGA Delegates (was RE: Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor)
Is there a page that has a list of everything that will be voted on?
I'd like to share that with my county council to get there input.
Also, what are the dates for SGA voting. When does the discussion period end and voting begin, etc? I'd like to add that to the GPCA Calendar.
Thanks,
Brett
Brett Anthony Dixon b@brettanthonydixon.com 760-299-3037
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: In San Francisco we select our SGA delegates by consensus.
I would assume all of the other counties have a similar process to consense on, or at least vote for, their SGA delegates.
The SGA is really just an electronic GA.
Eric Brooks
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Genevieve Marcus Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 11:07 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
If the SGA members were elected they would be no different than the GA.
Genevieve Marcus
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Nassim,
For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here.
However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t.
Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not.
I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago.
And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane).
☺
Wanda
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties.
Shouldn’t all SGA delegates bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input? We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well.
It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate.
Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative?
If so, why participate in votes as delegates?
Nassim Nouri Santa Clara County
On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"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 Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <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> 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> 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> 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- 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
-- 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
-- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
-- 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
You have to go back to the opening email for the full list of items up for the SGA, which came in at 4:34 am on Feb. 13 (I searched my in box for the phrase ‘save this email’ to find it!) The initial email on this particular item (now a different thread) included the discussion and voting dates (which are the same for all proposals) as follows: Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #145 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCAendorsement for Governor* Number of Seats: 1 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 Hope that helps! Mimi Newton Marin Greens On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:12 PM Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote:
Great question Brett – and me too – I’d like to request the same thing for sharing with my County Council.
Wanda
*From: *gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Brett Dixon <b@brettanthonydixon.com>
*Reply-To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Date: *Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 10:57 AM
*To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject: *Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Electing SGA Delegates (was RE: Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor)
Is there a page that has a list of everything that will be voted on?
I'd like to share that with my county council to get there input.
Also, what are the dates for SGA voting. When does the discussion period end and voting begin, etc? I'd like to add that to the GPCA Calendar.
Thanks,
Brett
Brett Anthony Dixon <https://www.brettanthonydixon.com/>
b@brettanthonydixon.com 760-299-3037
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
In San Francisco we select our SGA delegates by consensus.
I would assume all of the other counties have a similar process to consense on, or at least vote for, their SGA delegates.
The SGA is really just an electronic GA.
Eric Brooks
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Genevieve Marcus *Sent:* Monday, February 19, 2018 11:07 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
If the SGA members were elected they would be no different than the GA.
Genevieve Marcus
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nassim,
For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here.
However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t.
Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not.
I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago.
And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane).
☺
Wanda
*From: *gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> *Reply-To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Date: *Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM *To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject: *Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties.
Shouldn’t all SGA delegates
bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input?
We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well.
It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to
participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate.
Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative?
If so, why participate in votes as delegates?
Nassim Nouri
Santa Clara County
On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson < chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"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 Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < 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> 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> 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> 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m 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-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- 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
-- 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
--
*"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 *
-- 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
participants (5)
-
Brett Dixon -
Eric Brooks -
Mimi Newton -
Victoria Ashley -
Wanda Jean Lord