Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. *Proposal* That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide. On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/ sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol. On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide.
On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.
On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide.
On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: 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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
Proposal
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc. Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.
On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide.
On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I have an example: Bernie Sanders On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc.
Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.
On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide.
On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
I have an example: Bernie Sanders
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc.
Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.
On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide.
On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Yes, we need to clarify that this proposal does not direct the use of any Green Party funds at all. It won’t cost us a dime to simply endorse a Peace and Freedom candidate in a race where no Green is running. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Sadie Fulton Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:09 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com<mailto:sadie.fulton@gmail.com>> wrote: I have an example: Bernie Sanders On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc. Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com<mailto:jlebow@socal.rr.com>> wrote: I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol. On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide. On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com<mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> -- 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
Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether or not an endorsement is appropriate. Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out. On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
I have an example: Bernie Sanders
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc.
Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.
On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide.
On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/ sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- 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
This is incorrect. The CCWG and virtually every active Green volunteer that I have interacted with about the election, knows well that the three potential Green candidates for Governor (pending their making ballot status) are: Chris Carlson Veronika Fimbres Josh Jones From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:01 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether or not an endorsement is appropriate. Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out. On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton@gmail.com<mailto:sadie.fulton@gmail.com>> wrote: An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com<mailto:sadie.fulton@gmail.com>> wrote: I have an example: Bernie Sanders On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc. Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com<mailto:jlebow@socal.rr.com>> wrote: I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol. On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide. On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com<mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> -- 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
I think it is reasonable to expect that scarce tangible resources aren't going to be directed outside of the party, but I don't think there's any reasonable way to define that precisely in terms of rules and procedures... if we send out email blasts, and press releases, posts to our web site. and mailings to our own member base, all listing and encouraging a vote for P&F or NPP candidate, we're expending party resources at some level. The most valuable resource we have, at this point, especially, is the attention of our supporters. My disagreement is more based on principle than practicality, as, realistically, NPP candidates and those of the P&F party the only two external endorsement options we're going to run into at this point, when you're talking about statewide offices, and even more narrowly, offices for which no viable candidate is running for under the Green Party label. This is going to be relatively rare, and, if we're successful organizing, even more so. I see no great likelihood that the Peefers are going to suddenly going to become more popular or gain more access to resources than we are, and historically, they've had a much harder time maintaining their ballot status (though their recent ballot drive initiatives seem to have grown their numbers enough to alleviate any risk of losing ballot status). NPP candidacies, by their very nature, leave no ongoing infrastructure and are solo one offs. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
I have an example: Bernie Sanders
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc.
Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.
On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide.
On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/ sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- 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
Here's a compromise: In the case where there are no Greens running for an office, is there something we could do, short of endorsing a non-Green candidate? Perhaps a Fact Sheet that compares candidates side-by-side against the 10 Key principles? From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc. Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return.On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote: I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol. On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide. On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: 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 #155Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election CandidatesRanked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike GoldbeckDiscussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018Voting 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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@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- 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
As Erik and others have rightly said, we need to build strong solidarity and alliance with these other parties, and that means we need to endorse their candidates when they are good and we don’t have a candidate in the race. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of J HALL Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 9:42 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Here's a compromise: In the case where there are no Greens running for an office, is there something we could do, short of endorsing a non-Green candidate? Perhaps a Fact Sheet that compares candidates side-by-side against the 10 Key principles? ________________________________ From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc. Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com<mailto:jlebow@socal.rr.com>> wrote: I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol. On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide. On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com<mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations<http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations> Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@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<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<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<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
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party. We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement). Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/ sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I would probably have had that position a few years ago but I think some thinking outside the box is necessary to break out of our isolation, even though there are some risks as you outlined. Working on common slates with a left wing Party like Peace and Freedom seems pretty low risk to me. Same goes for progressive anti corporate independents. For example, our local Greens are supporting Gayle McLaughlin's independent run even though I would have much preferred that she run as a Green. There is some risk with her - that she will eventually join the DP- but think it is relatively low at least for the immediate future and her campaign is on the whole extremely positive. I don't think we as the GP should ever support registered Democrats in partisan races even if they claim to be corporate free. Even for local non partisan races, supporting registered Democrats is risky but in certain narrow circumstances may make sense in conjunction with Progressive Alliances. These issues have come up in the SD Progressive Alliance that the SD Green Party formed last year. We have defined corporate free to include rejecting Democratic Party money. We have as the SDPA endorsed one person who is a registered Democratic but has never held office before for local non partisan office. She agreed to reject DP money though seeking their endorsement (she probably won't get it but if she did she would get the benefit of DP resources through mailings, etc.) We rejected a better known more experienced Democratic politician also for a non partisan office because we were not convinced she was committed to being corporate free or putting people over profits. We are hoping our SDPA will at some point be able to ensure accountability but it is too small and weak now to do that. So we are taking a risk. And the SDPA should also in the future be running Greens with broader support than we could get on our own. Yes, the pressure to join the DP is tremendous including for people who run as Greens and get elected. The best we can do is build the Green Party while being cautiously open to some experimentation even statewide (developing common slates with progressive corporate free independents and other left wing parties) but especially at the local level. Ann Ann Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 4:18 AM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: 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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
Proposal
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Personally I assess candidate values and actions, not party affiliation. A progressive tent can only succeed if it promotes collaboration and partnership between like minded people from differing parties. Endorsement is one relatively easy step in growing the tent. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 8:18 AM, Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
I would probably have had that position a few years ago but I think some thinking outside the box is necessary to break out of our isolation, even though there are some risks as you outlined. Working on common slates with a left wing Party like Peace and Freedom seems pretty low risk to me. Same goes for progressive anti corporate independents. For example, our local Greens are supporting Gayle McLaughlin's independent run even though I would have much preferred that she run as a Green. There is some risk with her - that she will eventually join the DP- but think it is relatively low at least for the immediate future and her campaign is on the whole extremely positive. I don't think we as the GP should ever support registered Democrats in partisan races even if they claim to be corporate free.
Even for local non partisan races, supporting registered Democrats is risky but in certain narrow circumstances may make sense in conjunction with Progressive Alliances. These issues have come up in the SD Progressive Alliance that the SD Green Party formed last year. We have defined corporate free to include rejecting Democratic Party money. We have as the SDPA endorsed one person who is a registered Democratic but has never held office before for local non partisan office. She agreed to reject DP money though seeking their endorsement (she probably won't get it but if she did she would get the benefit of DP resources through mailings, etc.) We rejected a better known more experienced Democratic politician also for a non partisan office because we were not convinced she was committed to being corporate free or putting people over profits.
We are hoping our SDPA will at some point be able to ensure accountability but it is too small and weak now to do that. So we are taking a risk. And the SDPA should also in the future be running Greens with broader support than we could get on our own.
Yes, the pressure to join the DP is tremendous including for people who run as Greens and get elected. The best we can do is build the Green Party while being cautiously open to some experimentation even statewide (developing common slates with progressive corporate free independents and other left wing parties) but especially at the local level. Ann
Ann
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 4:18 AM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: 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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
Proposal
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc. The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates. This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates. Please vote yes. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *Erik Rydberg * *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* *erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903* cagreens.org
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard. Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence. That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/ sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 *
That is an excellent suggestion. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote: Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes. <IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: 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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
Proposal
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903
cagreens.org
-- 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
I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :) On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
That is an excellent suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take
Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
<IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *"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
I put forward the friendly amendment *to* the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Sadie Fulton Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :) On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com<mailto:aemenasche@gmail.com>> wrote: That is an excellent suggestion. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com<mailto:genevieve.marcus@gmail.com>> wrote: To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard. Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence. That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc. The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates. This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates. Please vote yes. <IMG_4783.jpg> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party. We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement). Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com<mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> -- 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 -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:(530)%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org<http://cagreens.org> -- 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 -- 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
Eric, The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
I put forward the friendly amendment **to** the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Sadie Fulton *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
That is an excellent suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that
the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
<IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/ sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*"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
-- *"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 *
Shouldn't we expect more from a *candidate* seeking our endorsement? Make it the 10 Key Values for the candidate, then we can communicate the implications to the public as we wish, since the Four Pillars are incorporated. Personally, as I said, the Ten Key Values, the ideal of a core set of principles animating all actions of the party, were what attracted me way back when. No other party has anything equivalent. Even at that, we're holding candidates of other parties to a lower standard than we would accept of our own candidates, since they're not obligated to abide by our platform, and can freely espouse policies we are explicitly opposed to in it. I still think this is a bad idea, that if used, should be done so with extreme selectivity (perhaps only with NPP candidates, even), but I'll metaphorically stand aside and not block consensus here, so to speak (not that I was going to do anything other than abstain in practice). The Green Party is unique in American politics, we stand in the lower left hand quadrant of the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org): we are anti-authoritarian AND anti-statist. We are anarcho-syndicalists / libertarian socialists, we seek voluntary communitarian solutions. We advocate for worker owned, democratically governed cooperatives and communes voluntarily exchanging with each other to meet internally unmet needs, not state ownership of the means of production and centrally planned economies. We advocate for radical decentralization of the structures of power, and a minimalist state (if any) that is accountable to people at the most immediate level. We seek restorative justice, not vengeance, jails and executions. We advocate for maximal freedom of the individual, while stating that with great power comes great responsibility to each other. Classically leftist / socialist parties are strategic allies, but not us in another skin, we are not merely "more liberal" than the Democrats, not classical socialism in environmentalist packaging, we are something other entirely. We should not lose track of that vital distinction. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
Eric,
The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
I put forward the friendly amendment **to** the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Sadie Fulton *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
That is an excellent suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that
the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
<IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*"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
-- *"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
Agree w/ Thomas 100% On Feb 22, 2018 1:06 AM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Shouldn't we expect more from a *candidate* seeking our endorsement? Make it the 10 Key Values for the candidate, then we can communicate the implications to the public as we wish, since the Four Pillars are incorporated. Personally, as I said, the Ten Key Values, the ideal of a core set of principles animating all actions of the party, were what attracted me way back when. No other party has anything equivalent.
Even at that, we're holding candidates of other parties to a lower standard than we would accept of our own candidates, since they're not obligated to abide by our platform, and can freely espouse policies we are explicitly opposed to in it.
I still think this is a bad idea, that if used, should be done so with extreme selectivity (perhaps only with NPP candidates, even), but I'll metaphorically stand aside and not block consensus here, so to speak (not that I was going to do anything other than abstain in practice).
The Green Party is unique in American politics, we stand in the lower left hand quadrant of the political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org): we are anti-authoritarian AND anti-statist. We are anarcho-syndicalists / libertarian socialists, we seek voluntary communitarian solutions. We advocate for worker owned, democratically governed cooperatives and communes voluntarily exchanging with each other to meet internally unmet needs, not state ownership of the means of production and centrally planned economies. We advocate for radical decentralization of the structures of power, and a minimalist state (if any) that is accountable to people at the most immediate level. We seek restorative justice, not vengeance, jails and executions. We advocate for maximal freedom of the individual, while stating that with great power comes great responsibility to each other. Classically leftist / socialist parties are strategic allies, but not us in another skin, we are not merely "more liberal" than the Democrats, not classical socialism in environmentalist packaging, we are something other entirely. We should not lose track of that vital distinction.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:35 PM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
Eric,
The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
I put forward the friendly amendment **to** the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Sadie Fulton *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
That is an excellent suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that
the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
<IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*"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
-- *"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
This is just a standard specifically for candidate endorsement, and won’t trickle down to voters. I would not want to endorse any candidate who cannot agree to the 10 Key Values. This will already be a given with our endorsement process, but if people want the 10 Key Values explicitly spelled out as a standard in this vote item, I’m fine with that. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Genevieve Marcus Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 7:35 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Eric, The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: I put forward the friendly amendment *to* the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Sadie Fulton Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :) On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com<mailto:aemenasche@gmail.com>> wrote: That is an excellent suggestion. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com<mailto:genevieve.marcus@gmail.com>> wrote: To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard. Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence. That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc. The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates. This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates. Please vote yes. <IMG_4783.jpg> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party. We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement). Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com<mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> -- 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 -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:(530)%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org<http://cagreens.org> -- 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 -- 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
I guess it would be helpful to understand what the evaluation process would be for an endorsement of this sort, and what level of effort and engagement with an outside candidate we would expect to have. Also, given June Brashares' statement that our endorsement process allows multiple candidates to be endorsed, it seems logical to assume that this process could potentially involve endorsement of multiple non-Green candidates for the same office, and also endorsement of a non-Green candidacy in a race where an endorsed Green Party candidate is running; you might think that unlikely, but if a prominent progressive that had a broad base of support was running as an NPP for, say, U.S. Senate, I can see a situation in which we could wind up in a knock down drag out fight between various factions within the party over who to endorse (see Cobb vs. Nader on a national basis in 2004), and wind up either endorsing no one, both as a compromise, or even only endorse an non-Green candidate when we have our own candidates running for office. There is nothing in this proposal to prevent that. It also makes us vulnerable to a Lyndon LaRouche or Lenora Fulani / New Alliance Party style entrant takeover (as I vividly remember was almost executed on the Peefers back in '92) where supporters of an external candidacy flood our local meetings for the purpose of swinging an endorsement. To protect us from these scenarios, I would like to see something like the CC specifically having to find that no credible candidate is running under the Green Party banner for a particular office before any endorsement of a non-Green candidate can be even considered. Would the sponsors of this amendment be open to that? Thomas On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is just a standard specifically for candidate endorsement, and won’t trickle down to voters.
I would not want to endorse any candidate who cannot agree to the 10 Key Values.
This will already be a given with our endorsement process, but if people want the 10 Key Values explicitly spelled out as a standard in this vote item, I’m fine with that.
Eric Brooks
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Genevieve Marcus *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 7:35 PM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Eric,
The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
I put forward the friendly amendment **to** the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Sadie Fulton *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
That is an excellent suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that
the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
<IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/ sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*"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
--
*"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
I second that amendment Brett Anthony Dixon <https://www.brettanthonydixon.com/> b@brettanthonydixon.com 760-299-3037 On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess it would be helpful to understand what the evaluation process would be for an endorsement of this sort, and what level of effort and engagement with an outside candidate we would expect to have.
Also, given June Brashares' statement that our endorsement process allows multiple candidates to be endorsed, it seems logical to assume that this process could potentially involve endorsement of multiple non-Green candidates for the same office, and also endorsement of a non-Green candidacy in a race where an endorsed Green Party candidate is running; you might think that unlikely, but if a prominent progressive that had a broad base of support was running as an NPP for, say, U.S. Senate, I can see a situation in which we could wind up in a knock down drag out fight between various factions within the party over who to endorse (see Cobb vs. Nader on a national basis in 2004), and wind up either endorsing no one, both as a compromise, or even only endorse an non-Green candidate when we have our own candidates running for office. There is nothing in this proposal to prevent that. It also makes us vulnerable to a Lyndon LaRouche or Lenora Fulani / New Alliance Party style entrant takeover (as I vividly remember was almost executed on the Peefers back in '92) where supporters of an external candidacy flood our local meetings for the purpose of swinging an endorsement.
To protect us from these scenarios, I would like to see something like the CC specifically having to find that no credible candidate is running under the Green Party banner for a particular office before any endorsement of a non-Green candidate can be even considered. Would the sponsors of this amendment be open to that?
Thomas
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is just a standard specifically for candidate endorsement, and won’t trickle down to voters.
I would not want to endorse any candidate who cannot agree to the 10 Key Values.
This will already be a given with our endorsement process, but if people want the 10 Key Values explicitly spelled out as a standard in this vote item, I’m fine with that.
Eric Brooks
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Genevieve Marcus *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 7:35 PM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Eric,
The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
I put forward the friendly amendment **to** the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Sadie Fulton *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
That is an excellent suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that
the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
<IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*"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
--
*"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
"like the CC specifically having to find that no credible candidate is running under the Green Party banner for a particular office before any endorsement of a non-Green candidate can be even considered." How do you define the credibility of Green candidates? Greens are not immune from issues, as we saw with Audie Bock, just to name one example. And of course, many elected Greens go on to join the Democrats later. On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Brett Dixon <b@brettanthonydixon.com> wrote:
I second that amendment
Brett Anthony Dixon <https://www.brettanthonydixon.com/> b@brettanthonydixon.com 760-299-3037 <(760)%20299-3037>
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess it would be helpful to understand what the evaluation process would be for an endorsement of this sort, and what level of effort and engagement with an outside candidate we would expect to have.
Also, given June Brashares' statement that our endorsement process allows multiple candidates to be endorsed, it seems logical to assume that this process could potentially involve endorsement of multiple non-Green candidates for the same office, and also endorsement of a non-Green candidacy in a race where an endorsed Green Party candidate is running; you might think that unlikely, but if a prominent progressive that had a broad base of support was running as an NPP for, say, U.S. Senate, I can see a situation in which we could wind up in a knock down drag out fight between various factions within the party over who to endorse (see Cobb vs. Nader on a national basis in 2004), and wind up either endorsing no one, both as a compromise, or even only endorse an non-Green candidate when we have our own candidates running for office. There is nothing in this proposal to prevent that. It also makes us vulnerable to a Lyndon LaRouche or Lenora Fulani / New Alliance Party style entrant takeover (as I vividly remember was almost executed on the Peefers back in '92) where supporters of an external candidacy flood our local meetings for the purpose of swinging an endorsement.
To protect us from these scenarios, I would like to see something like the CC specifically having to find that no credible candidate is running under the Green Party banner for a particular office before any endorsement of a non-Green candidate can be even considered. Would the sponsors of this amendment be open to that?
Thomas
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is just a standard specifically for candidate endorsement, and won’t trickle down to voters.
I would not want to endorse any candidate who cannot agree to the 10 Key Values.
This will already be a given with our endorsement process, but if people want the 10 Key Values explicitly spelled out as a standard in this vote item, I’m fine with that.
Eric Brooks
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Genevieve Marcus *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 7:35 PM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Eric,
The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
I put forward the friendly amendment **to** the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Sadie Fulton *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
That is an excellent suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that
the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
<IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*"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
--
*"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
Can't be anything more than a judgement call by the CC, sustained by the S/GA... that call was made, way back when, in the case of a certain Usenet kook of the month, when the party decided to campaign for NOTA (when that was an option). If someone that none of us are familiar with, that advocates policies diametrically opposite of our platform (for example, the death penalty, building the border wall, English as the official language of the State, etc.) decides to run under our banner, and a reasonable Peace and Freedom or NPP candidate is running for the same office, that might be one example where this would come into play (though, again, honestly, I'd likely advocate for no endorsement absent some extraordinary justification). I don't quite see how Audie Bock or Greens joining the Democrats (we can all think of examples) actually apply here, when we're talking about endorsements for statewide offices? We can't expect the CC to be psychic and anticipate people's future behavior, nor does it make sense to me to worry about defection by someone elected to Executive office, when we have yet to come even close to success. Honestly, absent some really bizarre scenario, if someone manages to get elected to statewide office on the Green Party ticket, I'd guess they'd be LESS subject to pressure to defect to the Democrats than someone elected to the legislature or lower level offices. After all, they're not dependent on Democrats to get policy enacted, and they've already demonstrated that they can get elected as a Green. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
"like the CC specifically having to find that no credible candidate is running under the Green Party banner for a particular office before any endorsement of a non-Green candidate can be even considered."
How do you define the credibility of Green candidates? Greens are not immune from issues, as we saw with Audie Bock, just to name one example. And of course, many elected Greens go on to join the Democrats later.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Brett Dixon <b@brettanthonydixon.com> wrote:
I second that amendment
Brett Anthony Dixon <https://www.brettanthonydixon.com/> b@brettanthonydixon.com 760-299-3037 <(760)%20299-3037>
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess it would be helpful to understand what the evaluation process would be for an endorsement of this sort, and what level of effort and engagement with an outside candidate we would expect to have.
Also, given June Brashares' statement that our endorsement process allows multiple candidates to be endorsed, it seems logical to assume that this process could potentially involve endorsement of multiple non-Green candidates for the same office, and also endorsement of a non-Green candidacy in a race where an endorsed Green Party candidate is running; you might think that unlikely, but if a prominent progressive that had a broad base of support was running as an NPP for, say, U.S. Senate, I can see a situation in which we could wind up in a knock down drag out fight between various factions within the party over who to endorse (see Cobb vs. Nader on a national basis in 2004), and wind up either endorsing no one, both as a compromise, or even only endorse an non-Green candidate when we have our own candidates running for office. There is nothing in this proposal to prevent that. It also makes us vulnerable to a Lyndon LaRouche or Lenora Fulani / New Alliance Party style entrant takeover (as I vividly remember was almost executed on the Peefers back in '92) where supporters of an external candidacy flood our local meetings for the purpose of swinging an endorsement.
To protect us from these scenarios, I would like to see something like the CC specifically having to find that no credible candidate is running under the Green Party banner for a particular office before any endorsement of a non-Green candidate can be even considered. Would the sponsors of this amendment be open to that?
Thomas
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
This is just a standard specifically for candidate endorsement, and won’t trickle down to voters.
I would not want to endorse any candidate who cannot agree to the 10 Key Values.
This will already be a given with our endorsement process, but if people want the 10 Key Values explicitly spelled out as a standard in this vote item, I’m fine with that.
Eric Brooks
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Genevieve Marcus *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 7:35 PM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Eric,
The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
I put forward the friendly amendment **to** the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Sadie Fulton *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
That is an excellent suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that
the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
<IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*"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
--
*"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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Agree On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:38 PM Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
That is an excellent suggestion.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.
Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.
That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.
Genevieve Marcus
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take
Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.
The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.
This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.
Please vote yes.
<IMG_4783.jpg>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.
We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *"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
-- Anthony J. Krzywicki, *Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council* www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party *It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. * -Dali Lama
Agree! What Sadie said… ☺ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 5:38 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :) On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote: That is an excellent suggestion. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote: To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard. Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence. That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote: Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc. The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates. This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates. Please vote yes. <IMG_4783.jpg> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party. We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement). Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: 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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. Proposal That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903 cagreens.org -- 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
Greens, When did we ever say we wanted to be an "umbrella" party? There is a place and purpose for coalitions and alliances. These groups typically consist of members of different parties or organizations who form together for a common purpose. To use an example- in Sacramento County, GP Sac County holds a seat on the Steering Committee of the Sacramento Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights. Other members include representatives from Jewish Voice for Peace, ANSWER Sacramento, Grandmothers for Peace, Veterans for Peace, Sacramento Area Peace Action, Sac Chapter NLG, Sac County PFP, among many others (full list https://sac4palestine.org/member-organizations/). Some of these groups are coalitions themselves, but most are distinct organizations which represent what their organization stands for. It can be assumed that all of these groups are inclusive, in general, but it seems unlikely you would find non-grandmothers in Grandmothers for Peace, for example, because the purpose would not really make sense. The structure of these groups is decided by dedicated members who relate to the experiences held by those in the categories they represent. To add input from people outside of the organization would dilute the intent of a specific organization. Now upon reading PFP Bylaws (see Article VIII), it seems they do not specify a process for endorsing non-PFP candidates and in fact state, "If an endorsed Peace and Freedom Party candidate is no longer a Peace and Freedom Party candidate, then that endorsement must be withdrawn unless and until the State Central Committee, the State Executive Committee or the state officers vote by a simple majority of those present and voting to reinstate it." https://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws Seems they have a process to make decisions based on circumstance, but DO NOT have this written in bylaws, which is an important distinction. I'm waiting to hear back from someone in PFP for clarity and will share what he says about this later. I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would likely exhaust our energy and resources further. In this cycle, CCWG failed to identify Green candidates running for statewide office, and as such, we do not have a reliable way to ensure no Green is running for an office in which we might consider endorsing a non-Green. I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would entitle non-Greens to funds and non-monetary resources which are already scarce in our party, and without said candidates holding any obligation to our party, or to the TKV after election time. I'm voting NO because this would encourage candidates to not run as Greens, and would therefore impede our purpose in promoting Green Party. *Please send your discussion comments to **gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California. Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy. *Proposal* That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: That the policy be amended from its current text: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members. To read as follow: GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions. Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations *Please send your discussion comments to** gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>* -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
The Maine Green Independent Party was the first Green Party in America forming in 1984. Their party has 38 candidates running in 2018. GPCA has 18. Inclusiveness leads to party growth. The most vocal people in these list serves appear to have little to no grasp of that concept. If you can’t stand in solidarity with your fellow socialists, corporate free-Independents and corporate-free Parties... they aren’t likely to stand in solidarity with you. Some Greens are just not out to make allies apparently. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:59 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Greens,
When did we ever say we wanted to be an "umbrella" party?
There is a place and purpose for coalitions and alliances. These groups typically consist of members of different parties or organizations who form together for a common purpose. To use an example- in Sacramento County, GP Sac County holds a seat on the Steering Committee of the Sacramento Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights. Other members include representatives from Jewish Voice for Peace, ANSWER Sacramento, Grandmothers for Peace, Veterans for Peace, Sacramento Area Peace Action, Sac Chapter NLG, Sac County PFP, among many others (full list https://sac4palestine.org/member-organizations/). Some of these groups are coalitions themselves, but most are distinct organizations which represent what their organization stands for. It can be assumed that all of these groups are inclusive, in general, but it seems unlikely you would find non-grandmothers in Grandmothers for Peace, for example, because the purpose would not really make sense.
The structure of these groups is decided by dedicated members who relate to the experiences held by those in the categories they represent. To add input from people outside of the organization would dilute the intent of a specific organization.
Now upon reading PFP Bylaws (see Article VIII), it seems they do not specify a process for endorsing non-PFP candidates and in fact state, "If an endorsed Peace and Freedom Party candidate is no longer a Peace and Freedom Party candidate, then that endorsement must be withdrawn unless and until the State Central Committee, the State Executive Committee or the state officers vote by a simple majority of those present and voting to reinstate it."
https://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws
Seems they have a process to make decisions based on circumstance, but DO NOT have this written in bylaws, which is an important distinction. I'm waiting to hear back from someone in PFP for clarity and will share what he says about this later.
I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would likely exhaust our energy and resources further. In this cycle, CCWG failed to identify Green candidates running for statewide office, and as such, we do not have a reliable way to ensure no Green is running for an office in which we might consider endorsing a non-Green.
I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would entitle non-Greens to funds and non-monetary resources which are already scarce in our party, and without said candidates holding any obligation to our party, or to the TKV after election time.
I'm voting NO because this would encourage candidates to not run as Greens, and would therefore impede our purpose in promoting Green Party.
*Please send your discussion comments to **gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to** gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *Erik Rydberg * *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* *erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903* cagreens.org
I’m voting yes. When was it said we operate on a party first and principles second? When was it said that like-minded progressives can’t collaborate and cross endorse? When was it said that the Green Party must remain inconsequential to statewide political outcomes? The Green Party cannot afford to be an isolationist party, fearing collaboration with those that honor our values. Let’s not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. My two cents Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Greens,
When did we ever say we wanted to be an "umbrella" party?
There is a place and purpose for coalitions and alliances. These groups typically consist of members of different parties or organizations who form together for a common purpose. To use an example- in Sacramento County, GP Sac County holds a seat on the Steering Committee of the Sacramento Regional Coalition for Palestinian Rights. Other members include representatives from Jewish Voice for Peace, ANSWER Sacramento, Grandmothers for Peace, Veterans for Peace, Sacramento Area Peace Action, Sac Chapter NLG, Sac County PFP, among many others (full list https://sac4palestine.org/member-organizations/). Some of these groups are coalitions themselves, but most are distinct organizations which represent what their organization stands for. It can be assumed that all of these groups are inclusive, in general, but it seems unlikely you would find non-grandmothers in Grandmothers for Peace, for example, because the purpose would not really make sense.
The structure of these groups is decided by dedicated members who relate to the experiences held by those in the categories they represent. To add input from people outside of the organization would dilute the intent of a specific organization.
Now upon reading PFP Bylaws (see Article VIII), it seems they do not specify a process for endorsing non-PFP candidates and in fact state, "If an endorsed Peace and Freedom Party candidate is no longer a Peace and Freedom Party candidate, then that endorsement must be withdrawn unless and until the State Central Committee, the State Executive Committee or the state officers vote by a simple majority of those present and voting to reinstate it."
https://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws
Seems they have a process to make decisions based on circumstance, but DO NOT have this written in bylaws, which is an important distinction. I'm waiting to hear back from someone in PFP for clarity and will share what he says about this later.
I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would likely exhaust our energy and resources further. In this cycle, CCWG failed to identify Green candidates running for statewide office, and as such, we do not have a reliable way to ensure no Green is running for an office in which we might consider endorsing a non-Green.
I'm voting NO on this proposal, as it would entitle non-Greens to funds and non-monetary resources which are already scarce in our party, and without said candidates holding any obligation to our party, or to the TKV after election time.
I'm voting NO because this would encourage candidates to not run as Greens, and would therefore impede our purpose in promoting Green Party.
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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
Proposal
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
If we're talking about having the goal of running more candidates for seats, how does endorsing non-Greens fit into this? If it's based on "The Norm of Reciprocity," where we would expect returned-kindness from our endorsements of others, we would be making a big leap of faith, with no guarantee in the end. As such, bylaws should not be amended in order to achieve this; vote NO. Further, Maine Green Independent Party had major ideological divisions over supporting Democrats over Greens in elections, and therefore cannot really be used as example, accurately, in this debate, as this amendment proposal would exclude corporate parties. I hope all further discourse on this matter can be debated without devolving into personal attacks about what members do and do not "grasp." On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/ sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
participants (15)
-
Ann Menasche -
Anthony Krzywicki -
Brett Dixon -
Eric Brooks -
Erik -
Genevieve Marcus -
GPCA Votes -
J HALL -
james clark -
Jeff Lebow -
Nicole Castor -
Sadie Fulton -
Thomas Leavitt -
Victoria Ashley -
Wanda Jean Lord