Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<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>
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
Background
The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
FYI - the GP Alameda County has had for many years a policy of never endorsing Demopublican or Republicrat candidates for partisan office. However, we have many times endorsed Independent or PF candidates when we did not have a Green candidate in the race. I can only remember one instance of endorsing someone over a Green, and that was the very unusual situation of a guy in So.Cal who was a sort of "fake Green", i.e. he had been PF and changed to Green just to run for state office. It seems reasonable to me for GPCA to endorse Independents or PFers, in some cases. In other words, I don't see any point in being dogmatic about demanding Green registration. Didn't most of y'all support Ralph Nader, who has never been a Green Party member? cheers, BobM On 3/26/18 14:35, Steve Breedlove wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com <mailto:jjarlsberg@gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net <mailto:lindap_a@verizon.net>> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com <mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:*gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
Bob, You bring up an interesting scenario. Yes, Nader ran for GPUS Presidential candidate (not a GPCA decision) in 1996 and 2000. In 2004 he was so self assured he would again get the nomination that he did not participate in preliminary procedures (I know I'm probably over simplifying) and David Cobb, who had followed the procedures, got the party's nomination. Nader then bolted the party and ran an independent campaign, taking Camejo with him. This probably diluted/split Green Party voters and campaign energy. I wonder if he would have done the same thing had he been a registered Green. But, again, that was a national party decision to run him as our candidate and the decision before us here is a statewide decision, in the context of operating under the top two jungle primary with already dwindling registration numbers. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Bob Marsh <bob.marshg@gmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>; Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office FYI - the GP Alameda County has had for many years a policy of never endorsing Demopublican or Republicrat candidates for partisan office. However, we have many times endorsed Independent or PF candidates when we did not have a Green candidate in the race. I can only remember one instance of endorsing someone over a Green, and that was the very unusual situation of a guy in So.Cal who was a sort of "fake Green", i.e. he had been PF and changed to Green just to run for state office. It seems reasonable to me for GPCA to endorse Independents or PFers, in some cases. In other words, I don't see any point in being dogmatic about demanding Green registration. Didn't most of y'all support Ralph Nader, who has never been a Green Party member? cheers, BobM On 3/26/18 14:35, Steve Breedlove wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time Background The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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 -- gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes@sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement. Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high. Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement
I don’t think she ran as NPP for a GP endorsement – – I think she honestly does not agree with the Establishment Democrats, because she is a true progressive. The issue at hand is what we are all going to do about having the opportunity to vote for a true progressive in a state office, unencumbered, directly, by Democrat party bosses. She has a great deal of experience working in an alliance of party representatives without compromising her progressive efforts. But imagine if Gayle loses by a very small margin, a margin that perhaps could have been overcome a GP endorsement. Although that might sound crazy, elections are funny things… We will all have to wonder, had we supported her — instead of being militant about Party allegiance — whether we could have, for the first time in history, put a true progressive into the state government. While that situation may seem unlikely, it is a risk we take when we limit our support. A party that purports to be about social justice being unwilling to endorse a woman candidate who has dedicated her life to social justice, only because of her party affiliation - although the risk is slim, the impact will affect millions, should Gayle be able to impact issues like single payer, or rent control, or a public bank, as the billionaire putting his money down is betting on. Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #155
Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
Background
The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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
-- 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 are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon. Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #155
Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
Background
The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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
-- 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 are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform. The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both. Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation) For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move. If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net
wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
Erik, The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics. I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique. Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally. As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances. On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila < lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal. If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation. Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences. https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process. Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties. If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose. There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila < lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
-- 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
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal. If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation. Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences. https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process. Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties. If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose. There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: Erik, The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics. I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique. Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally. As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances. On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform. The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both. Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation) For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move. If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com<mailto:aemenasche@gmail.com>> wrote: We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement. Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high. Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com<mailto:srbreedlove@gmail.com>> wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com<mailto:jjarlsberg@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net<mailto:lindap_a@verizon.net>> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<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 -- 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 [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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now? If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal? Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation? Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
-- 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
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition. The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them. That’s what this Bylaws change is all about. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now? If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal? Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation? Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal. If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation. Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences. https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process. Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties. If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose. There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: Erik, The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics. I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique. Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally. As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances. On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform. The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both. Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation) For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move. If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com<mailto:aemenasche@gmail.com>> wrote: We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement. Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high. Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com<mailto:srbreedlove@gmail.com>> wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com<mailto:jjarlsberg@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net<mailto:lindap_a@verizon.net>> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<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 -- 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 [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 -- 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 a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement. Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition.
The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now?
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation?
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote: We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote: We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
Background
The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision. What in the language makes you think otherwise? On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition.
The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now?
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation?
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
-- 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
Steven & others, What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political party. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision. What in the language makes you think otherwise?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition.
The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now?
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation?
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never intended to be our main objective and I don't believe it is written as such. On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Steven & others, What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political party. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision. What in the language makes you think otherwise?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition.
The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now?
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation?
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Re Steve I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and straight-forward proposal. I’m not sure where the impression of “fear” comes from, as I’m using good old fashioned logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal does not take much of anything into account. It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. The arguments I’ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively enthusiastic about the possible outcomes. The specific language is the part where the word, “Green,” disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. I’ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next voting period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good candidates in a way which doesn’t defeat our purpose in being a legitimate political party. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never intended to be our main objective and I don't believe it is written as such.
On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven & others,
What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision. What in the language makes you think otherwise?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition.
The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now?
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation?
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila < lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- 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
Top Two is not a temporary circumstance. Belittling the work of others who took the time to assess the very real problems the Green Party of California faces is necessary. People took time and combed through the bylaws to find the restrictive portions, rewrote them and went through the trouble to propose them... it was not a rash, impulsive, naive or emotion based process. It took months. Don't demean others work. Respect and courtesy please. Even if you disagree. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Re Steve
I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and straight-forward proposal. I’m not sure where the impression of “fear” comes from, as I’m using good old fashioned logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal does not take much of anything into account. It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. The arguments I’ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively enthusiastic about the possible outcomes.
The specific language is the part where the word, “Green,” disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
I’ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next voting period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good candidates in a way which doesn’t defeat our purpose in being a legitimate political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never intended to be our main objective and I don't believe it is written as such.
On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven & others,
What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision. What in the language makes you think otherwise?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition.
The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now?
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation?
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila < lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *Erik Rydberg * *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* *erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903* cagreens.org
Folks, I’m stepping in here to ask *both* sides of this debate to take a step back from making it too personally directed at individuals. Please try to speak more generally about the proposal and its strengths and weaknesses rather than commenting (justified or not) on the personal motives, assumptions, or actions, of others. Let’s keep this discussion on the substance, and off of each other. thanks Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Erik Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:31 PM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Top Two is not a temporary circumstance. Belittling the work of others who took the time to assess the very real problems the Green Party of California faces is necessary. People took time and combed through the bylaws to find the restrictive portions, rewrote them and went through the trouble to propose them... it was not a rash, impulsive, naive or emotion based process. It took months. Don't demean others work. Respect and courtesy please. Even if you disagree. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Re Steve I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and straight-forward proposal. I’m not sure where the impression of “fear” comes from, as I’m using good old fashioned logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal does not take much of anything into account. It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. The arguments I’ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively enthusiastic about the possible outcomes. The specific language is the part where the word, “Green,” disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. I’ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next voting period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good candidates in a way which doesn’t defeat our purpose in being a legitimate political party. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com<mailto:srbreedlove@gmail.com>> wrote: Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never intended to be our main objective and I don't believe it is written as such. On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Steven & others, What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political party. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com<mailto:srbreedlove@gmail.com>> wrote: Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision. What in the language makes you think otherwise? On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote: We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition. The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them. That’s what this Bylaws change is all about. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now? If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal? Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation? Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal. If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation. Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences. https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process. Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties. If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose. There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: Erik, The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics. I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique. Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally. As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances. On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform. The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both. Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation) For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move. If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com<mailto:aemenasche@gmail.com>> wrote: We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement. Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high. Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com<mailto:srbreedlove@gmail.com>> wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com<mailto:jjarlsberg@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net<mailto:lindap_a@verizon.net>> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<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 -- 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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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 [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org<http://cagreens.org>
Top two might actually be temporary (time will tell) but I was referring to the circumstances of this particular election as temporary. Criticizing a proposal is not the same as demeaning someone’s work and in the arena of politics, it is very useful and necessary to hold the ability of separating personal feelings with professional ideas. Looking at pre-top-two figures for 2010 General Election, Camejo (G) and Jordan (PFP) would have received a combined total of 3.1% if there were an alliance between parties, as has been suggested as the objective of this proposal. The winner, Schwarzenegger (R) received 55.9% of the vote. A Lt. Gov alliance would have fetched 3.3%, 4.3% for SOS, 5.7% for Controller, which is really nice, but still a far cry from the 50.7% with which the Dems won. Treasurer would see 3.4%, and Ins Comm, 5.4%. Post-Top-Two, numbers look pretty similar, but the obvious difference is that none of the Green candidates made it to the November General as they had previously. This seems like a problem, but is it? In both cases, candidates secured more than the 2% needed to retain ballot access for the state party. Top-Two certainly is not helping us to win, but we were nowhere near the threshold to win to begin with. Top Two is NOT an emergency. Top Two is not a big looming threat which should compel us to change the structure of our policies in a way which de-legitimizes the point of having a Green Party. Having such an open endorsement policy does not encourage people to register and run Green, and to remind those who forgot: Our mission within the internal party is not to "effect a revolution," "get 'progressives' elected," or any such subjective goals of which none of us really agree on the meaning of anyway, it is to PROMOTE GREEN PARTY. We are not a coalition or alliance. We may work on such alliances, obviously, but this is Green Party. As Green Party members, we should be campaigning against Top Two, most certainly, but we should not use it as an excuse to hastily pass policy changes in our internal party structure, particularly when such a change could and likely would negatively impact our registration numbers by encouraging people to NOT register and run Green. Here is a screencap of 2014 to compare numbers... On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 5:38 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Folks, I’m stepping in here to ask **both** sides of this debate to take a step back from making it too personally directed at individuals.
Please try to speak more generally about the proposal and its strengths and weaknesses rather than commenting (justified or not) on the personal motives, assumptions, or actions, of others.
Let’s keep this discussion on the substance, and off of each other.
thanks
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Erik *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:31 PM
*To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Top Two is not a temporary circumstance. Belittling the work of others who took the time to assess the very real problems the Green Party of California faces is necessary. People took time and combed through the bylaws to find the restrictive portions, rewrote them and went through the trouble to propose them... it was not a rash, impulsive, naive or emotion based process. It took months. Don't demean others work. Respect and courtesy please. Even if you disagree.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Re Steve
I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and straight-forward proposal. I’m not sure where the impression of “fear” comes from, as I’m using good old fashioned logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal does not take much of anything into account. It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. The arguments I’ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively enthusiastic about the possible outcomes.
The specific language is the part where the word, “Green,” disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
I’ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next voting period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good candidates in a way which doesn’t defeat our purpose in being a legitimate political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never intended to be our main objective and I don't believe it is written as such.
On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven & others,
What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision.
What in the language makes you think otherwise?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition.
The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now?
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation?
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*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
Fear isn't an insult. It's an observation. Many people were "worried" that it would do this that or the other and undermine the Party. It seems to strengthen our position within the greater progressive movement. That's not an emotional attachment or assessment but an observable fact. Greens participating in conversations and those groups endorsing our candidates does exactly the same, it strengthens our position AS LEADERS of an emerging coalition. It does not take the responsibility of endorsing candidates off the ENTIRE body through the GA. It's a good thing. And naysayers won't stop us ffmrom becoming the natural leaders we are. Thanks. On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:38 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Folks, I’m stepping in here to ask **both** sides of this debate to take a step back from making it too personally directed at individuals.
Please try to speak more generally about the proposal and its strengths and weaknesses rather than commenting (justified or not) on the personal motives, assumptions, or actions, of others.
Let’s keep this discussion on the substance, and off of each other.
thanks
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Erik *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:31 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Top Two is not a temporary circumstance. Belittling the work of others who took the time to assess the very real problems the Green Party of California faces is necessary. People took time and combed through the bylaws to find the restrictive portions, rewrote them and went through the trouble to propose them... it was not a rash, impulsive, naive or emotion based process. It took months. Don't demean others work. Respect and courtesy please. Even if you disagree.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Re Steve
I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and straight-forward proposal. I’m not sure where the impression of “fear” comes from, as I’m using good old fashioned logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal does not take much of anything into account. It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. The arguments I’ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively enthusiastic about the possible outcomes.
The specific language is the part where the word, “Green,” disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
I’ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next voting period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good candidates in a way which doesn’t defeat our purpose in being a legitimate political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never intended to be our main objective and I don't believe it is written as such.
On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven & others,
What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision.
What in the language makes you think otherwise?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition.
The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now?
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation?
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <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
Why do i keep hearing mentioning of “LEADERS?” We don’t need to be leaders of an emerging coalition... the idea of “natural leaders” is a myth. I don’t want to get into it. We’re decentralized. We are fully capable of working cooperatively with like-minded people to accomplish certain important tasks. This proposal has nothing to do with such things. It diminishes the significance of being a distinct party by making an open policy for endorsements. This weakens our party identity, which is probably why other parties do not have their policies written in this way. I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO. -N Ps Anarchist ideology doesn’t support the concept of “leaders.” Js On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 8:28 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Fear isn't an insult. It's an observation. Many people were "worried" that it would do this that or the other and undermine the Party. It seems to strengthen our position within the greater progressive movement. That's not an emotional attachment or assessment but an observable fact. Greens participating in conversations and those groups endorsing our candidates does exactly the same, it strengthens our position AS LEADERS of an emerging coalition. It does not take the responsibility of endorsing candidates off the ENTIRE body through the GA. It's a good thing. And naysayers won't stop us ffmrom becoming the natural leaders we are. Thanks.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 5:38 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Folks, I’m stepping in here to ask **both** sides of this debate to take a step back from making it too personally directed at individuals.
Please try to speak more generally about the proposal and its strengths and weaknesses rather than commenting (justified or not) on the personal motives, assumptions, or actions, of others.
Let’s keep this discussion on the substance, and off of each other.
thanks
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Erik *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:31 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Top Two is not a temporary circumstance. Belittling the work of others who took the time to assess the very real problems the Green Party of California faces is necessary. People took time and combed through the bylaws to find the restrictive portions, rewrote them and went through the trouble to propose them... it was not a rash, impulsive, naive or emotion based process. It took months. Don't demean others work. Respect and courtesy please. Even if you disagree.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Re Steve
I never mentioned being confused by this pretty basic and straight-forward proposal. I’m not sure where the impression of “fear” comes from, as I’m using good old fashioned logic to come to the conclusion that the proposal does not take much of anything into account. It seems like a rash and impulsive response to a temporary circumstance. The arguments I’ve seen for it seem to be emotion-based and naively enthusiastic about the possible outcomes.
The specific language is the part where the word, “Green,” disappears in reference to who we endorse. We are Green Party. Anyone involved in GP at the county, state, national, etc. levels are volunteering their time to promote GREEN PARTY. I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
I’ve already voted NO on 155 and hold hope that during the next voting period, a better proposal comes which would enable us to help good candidates in a way which doesn’t defeat our purpose in being a legitimate political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:09 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole, what specific language leads you to this perception? It seems to be more fear based arguments not rooted in reality. I genuinely want to know what is confusing so we can avoid it in the future. It wad never intended to be our main objective and I don't believe it is written as such.
On Mar 28, 2018 11:00 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven & others,
What I’m saying is the proposal is asking to leave our rules always open for non green endorsements as if it’s our main objective rather than having our main objective to be to support greens except in specific circumstances. Our green agenda should be in the forefront because this is how we represent our party. We’re not a coalition, we are a political party.
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Nicole. Right now We CAN NOT make specific exceptions for candidates. We are explicitly forbidden. All this proposal does it let us choose on a CASE BY CASE basis who we endorse while also shutting the door on any candidate in a Party that accepts corporate money at any level. It in NO WAY obligates us to endorse and that will still be a consensus/democratic decision.
What in the language makes you think otherwise?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 10:53 PM Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
We have a green running with proportional representation as a plank. And it might even be in their ballot statement.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
There isn’t a piece of legislation or ballot measure for Proportional Representation, precisely because we haven’t built nearly enough respect and interactive solidarity with other parties and activists to make that possible. Our connections with them are far too loose and sporadic to empower an effective organizing coalition.
The first step in building closer solidarity and capacity to mobilize with others is to reach out unselfishly, and help them.
That’s what this Bylaws change is all about.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:56 PM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now?
If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal?
Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation?
Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM *To:* GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal.
If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation.
Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences.
https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism
http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf
As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process.
Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties.
If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose.
There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal.
-N
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Hmm, you may have missed my comments in favor that were directly based on real-life election successes here in Berkeley, CA. I sent them a couple days ago. More points NOT based in "supposition, assumptions, faith, etc.”: We’ve had elected Green Party members on the City Council and the Rent Board since the early 1990s in part because of cross-endorsements and coalition-building with like-minded non-Greens. Our local County Council and our city’s Chapter has always cross-endorsed, and our Green Voting Guide is a vital source of information for a broad swath of local progressives and leftists. Because we discuss candidates and propositions fully, including highlighting non-Green candidates, we are seen as a realistic & viable option to the Big $$$ parties & candidates. This is KEY to our on-going electoral success with the majority non-Green electorate. Secondly, this allows the state Party the flexibility that our Counties & Chapters already have. Why restrict our options? There’s nothing here that mandates cross-endorsements. Yours, Jesse Townley Berkeley Rent Board, current member & former Chair, 2008-present Alameda County Green
On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO.
-N
Secondly, this allows the state Party the *flexibility* that our Counties & Chapters already have.
That's a great point. -- Victoria On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Jesse Townley <jt02@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hmm, you may have missed my comments in favor that were directly based on real-life election successes here in Berkeley, CA. I sent them a couple days ago.
More points NOT based in "supposition, assumptions, faith, etc.”: We’ve had elected Green Party members on the City Council and the Rent Board since the early 1990s in part because of cross-endorsements and coalition-building with like-minded non-Greens.
Our local County Council and our city’s Chapter has always cross-endorsed, and our Green Voting Guide is a vital source of information for a broad swath of local progressives and leftists. Because we discuss candidates and propositions fully, including highlighting non-Green candidates, we are seen as a realistic & viable option to the Big $$$ parties & candidates. This is KEY to our on-going electoral success with the majority non-Green electorate.
Secondly, this allows the state Party the flexibility that our Counties & Chapters already have. Why restrict our options? There’s nothing here that mandates cross-endorsements.
Yours, Jesse Townley Berkeley Rent Board, current member & former Chair, 2008-present Alameda County Green
On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO.
-N
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
What Jesse is talking about is at the local level. Sac Greens also work closely with our local alternative parties, as I have mentioned several times throughout these threads. The big difference between local & state is that local is more focused, smaller, and does not generally have the same faction problems the state has. We make decisions on a case by case basis and as a smaller group, we are able to focus more intently on specifics than the state would at broader level. We don’t have a broad, open policy and we’re also not such a large representation of the party in general. As such, people can see an example of us working cooperatively with other groups & parties without getting the impression that Green Party is not its own political party. If this were implemented at the state level- this is the impression it would have. The other thing about local involvement with other parties and groups is that Sac Greens are generally not seeing people join up with the GP as a result of our coalitions. The purpose of our associations is to get specific tasks accomplished. This has very little bearing on registration at the local level but could definitely have a negative impact when applied on a larger scale. There are many things we could focus on with non voters, for example, without weakening our party identity and giving the impression that we exist to help others get elected rather than having a solid foundation in our own party and values. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:06 AM Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Secondly, this allows the state Party the *flexibility* that our Counties & Chapters already have.
That's a great point.
-- Victoria
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Jesse Townley <jt02@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hmm, you may have missed my comments in favor that were directly based on real-life election successes here in Berkeley, CA. I sent them a couple days ago.
More points NOT based in "supposition, assumptions, faith, etc.”: We’ve had elected Green Party members on the City Council and the Rent Board since the early 1990s in part because of cross-endorsements and coalition-building with like-minded non-Greens.
Our local County Council and our city’s Chapter has always cross-endorsed, and our Green Voting Guide is a vital source of information for a broad swath of local progressives and leftists. Because we discuss candidates and propositions fully, including highlighting non-Green candidates, we are seen as a realistic & viable option to the Big $$$ parties & candidates. This is KEY to our on-going electoral success with the majority non-Green electorate.
Secondly, this allows the state Party the flexibility that our Counties & Chapters already have. Why restrict our options? There’s nothing here that mandates cross-endorsements.
Yours, Jesse Townley Berkeley Rent Board, current member & former Chair, 2008-present Alameda County Green
On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO.
-N
-- 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
“What Jesse is talking about is at the local level.” What Jesse is really talking about is flexibility in group decision-making, regardless of level. We cannot present our experiences at the state party level because currently we are not ALLOWED to consider the option. — Victoria Sent from my iPad
On Mar 29, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
What Jesse is talking about is at the local level.
Jesse, thanks for more concrete evidence of this pattern that plays out all over the world. Nicole. I'm personally an anarchist. But I'm involved in electoral politics which is inherently not an anarchic enterprise. People campaign as Greens not because they want to disband the state but because they want to use state power for different ends than it currently serves. And in the CURRENT POLITICAL CONTEXT, leadership is actually a useful and real concept. I'm glad you voted your conscience as a delegate. I hope more people see the utility in this proposal. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 9:27 AM Jesse Townley <jt02@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hmm, you may have missed my comments in favor that were directly based on real-life election successes here in Berkeley, CA. I sent them a couple days ago.
More points NOT based in "supposition, assumptions, faith, etc.”: We’ve had elected Green Party members on the City Council and the Rent Board since the early 1990s in part because of cross-endorsements and coalition-building with like-minded non-Greens.
Our local County Council and our city’s Chapter has always cross-endorsed, and our Green Voting Guide is a vital source of information for a broad swath of local progressives and leftists. Because we discuss candidates and propositions fully, including highlighting non-Green candidates, we are seen as a realistic & viable option to the Big $$$ parties & candidates. This is KEY to our on-going electoral success with the majority non-Green electorate.
Secondly, this allows the state Party the flexibility that our Counties & Chapters already have. Why restrict our options? There’s nothing here that mandates cross-endorsements.
Yours, Jesse Townley Berkeley Rent Board, current member & former Chair, 2008-present Alameda County Green
On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO.
-N
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
It is important that people understand that anarchism literally means “No Rulers”. It does not mean ‘no governance’. And it does not mean ‘no leaders’. Leaders are an essential part of any social system, including consensus based (anarchist) social systems. A lot of anarchists take part in electoral politics to advance social decision making toward more consensus based structures. To the subject at hand, the number one strategy of anarchists, is to reach out to other groups and peoples to help them get what they need to build solidarity and mutual aid with those others. We use this as our number one organizing tool because it works. And that is why the Green Party needs to reach out to other parties to help them, and to build mutual aid and solidarity with them. This makes us all stronger in our fight against the corporate parties. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Steve Breedlove Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:18 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Jesse, thanks for more concrete evidence of this pattern that plays out all over the world. Nicole. I'm personally an anarchist. But I'm involved in electoral politics which is inherently not an anarchic enterprise. People campaign as Greens not because they want to disband the state but because they want to use state power for different ends than it currently serves. And in the CURRENT POLITICAL CONTEXT, leadership is actually a useful and real concept. I'm glad you voted your conscience as a delegate. I hope more people see the utility in this proposal. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 9:27 AM Jesse Townley <jt02@mindspring.com<mailto:jt02@mindspring.com>> wrote: Hmm, you may have missed my comments in favor that were directly based on real-life election successes here in Berkeley, CA. I sent them a couple days ago. More points NOT based in "supposition, assumptions, faith, etc.”: We’ve had elected Green Party members on the City Council and the Rent Board since the early 1990s in part because of cross-endorsements and coalition-building with like-minded non-Greens. Our local County Council and our city’s Chapter has always cross-endorsed, and our Green Voting Guide is a vital source of information for a broad swath of local progressives and leftists. Because we discuss candidates and propositions fully, including highlighting non-Green candidates, we are seen as a realistic & viable option to the Big $$$ parties & candidates. This is KEY to our on-going electoral success with the majority non-Green electorate. Secondly, this allows the state Party the flexibility that our Counties & Chapters already have. Why restrict our options? There’s nothing here that mandates cross-endorsements. Yours, Jesse Townley Berkeley Rent Board, current member & former Chair, 2008-present Alameda County Green
On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote:
I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO.
-N
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I am getting these emails and trying to participate in the discussion, but I don't believe my resplies are going through to anyone. Its very frustrating. What am I doing wrong? -----Original Message----- From: Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Thu, Mar 29, 2018 7:38 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office It is important that people understand that anarchism literally means “No Rulers”. It does not mean ‘no governance’. And it does not mean ‘no leaders’. Leaders are an essential part of any social system, including consensus based (anarchist) social systems. A lot of anarchists take part in electoral politics to advance social decision making toward more consensus based structures. To the subject at hand, the number one strategy of anarchists, is to reach out to other groups and peoples to help them get what they need to build solidarity and mutual aid with those others. We use this as our number one organizing tool because it works. And that is why the Green Party needs to reach out to other parties to help them, and to build mutual aid and solidarity with them. This makes us all stronger in our fight against the corporate parties. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of Steve Breedlove Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:18 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Jesse, thanks for more concrete evidence of this pattern that plays out all over the world. Nicole. I'm personally an anarchist. But I'm involved in electoral politics which is inherently not an anarchic enterprise. People campaign as Greens not because they want to disband the state but because they want to use state power for different ends than it currently serves. And in the CURRENT POLITICAL CONTEXT, leadership is actually a useful and real concept. I'm glad you voted your conscience as a delegate. I hope more people see the utility in this proposal. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 9:27 AM Jesse Townley <jt02@mindspring.com> wrote: Hmm, you may have missed my comments in favor that were directly based on real-life election successes here in Berkeley, CA. I sent them a couple days ago. More points NOT based in "supposition, assumptions, faith, etc.”: We’ve had elected Green Party members on the City Council and the Rent Board since the early 1990s in part because of cross-endorsements and coalition-building with like-minded non-Greens. Our local County Council and our city’s Chapter has always cross-endorsed, and our Green Voting Guide is a vital source of information for a broad swath of local progressives and leftists. Because we discuss candidates and propositions fully, including highlighting non-Green candidates, we are seen as a realistic & viable option to the Big $$$ parties & candidates. This is KEY to our on-going electoral success with the majority non-Green electorate. Secondly, this allows the state Party the flexibility that our Counties & Chapters already have. Why restrict our options? There’s nothing here that mandates cross-endorsements. Yours, Jesse Townley Berkeley Rent Board, current member & former Chair, 2008-present Alameda County Green
On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO.
-N
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes@sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Hi Jason, all, On the email server we are using, some replies for some reason get randomly delayed. These usually come through from within a few minutes to several hours. We realize this isn’t ideal, but unfortunately it’s the best we’ve got to work with right now. We are going to work to find a better email server solution before the next SGA. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Jason Kishineff Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 8:02 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office I am getting these emails and trying to participate in the discussion, but I don't believe my resplies are going through to anyone. Its very frustrating. What am I doing wrong? -----Original Message----- From: Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Sent: Thu, Mar 29, 2018 7:38 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office It is important that people understand that anarchism literally means “No Rulers”. It does not mean ‘no governance’. And it does not mean ‘no leaders’. Leaders are an essential part of any social system, including consensus based (anarchist) social systems. A lot of anarchists take part in electoral politics to advance social decision making toward more consensus based structures. To the subject at hand, the number one strategy of anarchists, is to reach out to other groups and peoples to help them get what they need to build solidarity and mutual aid with those others. We use this as our number one organizing tool because it works. And that is why the Green Party needs to reach out to other parties to help them, and to build mutual aid and solidarity with them. This makes us all stronger in our fight against the corporate parties. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org?>] On Behalf Of Steve Breedlove Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:18 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Jesse, thanks for more concrete evidence of this pattern that plays out all over the world. Nicole. I'm personally an anarchist. But I'm involved in electoral politics which is inherently not an anarchic enterprise. People campaign as Greens not because they want to disband the state but because they want to use state power for different ends than it currently serves. And in the CURRENT POLITICAL CONTEXT, leadership is actually a useful and real concept. I'm glad you voted your conscience as a delegate. I hope more people see the utility in this proposal. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 9:27 AM Jesse Townley <jt02@mindspring.com<mailto:jt02@mindspring.com>> wrote: Hmm, you may have missed my comments in favor that were directly based on real-life election successes here in Berkeley, CA. I sent them a couple days ago. More points NOT based in "supposition, assumptions, faith, etc.”: We’ve had elected Green Party members on the City Council and the Rent Board since the early 1990s in part because of cross-endorsements and coalition-building with like-minded non-Greens. Our local County Council and our city’s Chapter has always cross-endorsed, and our Green Voting Guide is a vital source of information for a broad swath of local progressives and leftists. Because we discuss candidates and propositions fully, including highlighting non-Green candidates, we are seen as a realistic & viable option to the Big $$$ parties & candidates. This is KEY to our on-going electoral success with the majority non-Green electorate. Secondly, this allows the state Party the flexibility that our Counties & Chapters already have. Why restrict our options? There’s nothing here that mandates cross-endorsements. Yours, Jesse Townley Berkeley Rent Board, current member & former Chair, 2008-present Alameda County Green
On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote:
I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO.
-N
-- 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:votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Kind of like what Natiri and Jake did in the movie Avatar! On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
It is important that people understand that anarchism literally means “No Rulers”. It does not mean ‘no governance’. And it does not mean ‘no leaders’. Leaders are an essential part of any social system, including consensus based (anarchist) social systems.
A lot of anarchists take part in electoral politics to advance social decision making toward more consensus based structures.
To the subject at hand, the number one strategy of anarchists, is to reach out to other groups and peoples to help them get what they need to build solidarity and mutual aid with those others. We use this as our number one organizing tool because it works.
And that is why the Green Party needs to reach out to other parties to help them, and to build mutual aid and solidarity with them.
This makes us all stronger in our fight against the corporate parties.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Breedlove *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2018 10:18 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Jesse, thanks for more concrete evidence of this pattern that plays out all over the world.
Nicole. I'm personally an anarchist. But I'm involved in electoral politics which is inherently not an anarchic enterprise. People campaign as Greens not because they want to disband the state but because they want to use state power for different ends than it currently serves. And in the CURRENT POLITICAL CONTEXT, leadership is actually a useful and real concept. I'm glad you voted your conscience as a delegate. I hope more people see the utility in this proposal.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 9:27 AM Jesse Townley <jt02@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hmm, you may have missed my comments in favor that were directly based on real-life election successes here in Berkeley, CA. I sent them a couple days ago.
More points NOT based in "supposition, assumptions, faith, etc.”: We’ve had elected Green Party members on the City Council and the Rent Board since the early 1990s in part because of cross-endorsements and coalition-building with like-minded non-Greens.
Our local County Council and our city’s Chapter has always cross-endorsed, and our Green Voting Guide is a vital source of information for a broad swath of local progressives and leftists. Because we discuss candidates and propositions fully, including highlighting non-Green candidates, we are seen as a realistic & viable option to the Big $$$ parties & candidates. This is KEY to our on-going electoral success with the majority non-Green electorate.
Secondly, this allows the state Party the flexibility that our Counties & Chapters already have. Why restrict our options? There’s nothing here that mandates cross-endorsements.
Yours, Jesse Townley Berkeley Rent Board, current member & former Chair, 2008-present Alameda County Green
On Mar 28, 2018, at 9:43 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I have seen no convincing arguments on this thread explaining how the proposal would effect the benefits it claims it will help the party gain. Everything is based on supposition, assumptions, faith, etc. Most the arguments sound more like excuses to vote for it rather than compelling reasons. I already voted NO.
-N
-- 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
Specific legislation? Yeah, almost all of it. The military-corporate stranglehold has grown more and more oppressive and we need to band together to fight it with everything we've got, not turn away help because their political party is different. We are allies here. -----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Tue, Mar 27, 2018 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Is there a specific piece or f legislation which we are working on passing along with other parties right now? If not, what does endorsing candidates have to do with Proportional Representation at this moment when we decide on this proposal? Are we endorsing a legislative proposal or are we proposing to change our bylaws to reflect a policy which is not immediately and directly related to Proportional Representation? Seems like an appeal to emotion and linking of closely-related concepts to give the impression there is a direct causal relationship between endorsing non-Greens and getting Proportional Representation implemented through legislative process and there IS NOT. I vote NO. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:48 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: Proportional Representation is a key reason for this Bylaws change because in building much closer solidarity and interaction with Peace & Freedom and others, we will be building a much better organized network of groups and activists to win reforms like proportional representation. Right now our relationships with those other parties is too ad hoc and arm’s length. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of Nicole Castor Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:00 AM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office It makes absolutely no sense to use a platform issue like proportional representation to sell this proposal. If there were a specific case of getting legislation passed at a certain time- it would make sense to form a coalition with other parties to pass specific legislation by rallying all voters who agree with it to petition for it and vote for it. Endorsing a specific candidate for a specific office is in no way related to this because such an election would have no direct effect on specific legislation like proportional representation. Instead, it sounds more like a mission statement from Movement for a People’s Party. It sounds good in theory but essentially ends up turning into a “Melting Pot” of ideology where each distinct party involved loses its identity in the process. This is why in regards to race relations, “Multi-Culturalism,” or “Cultural Pluralism is better than “Melting Pot” because of respect to diversity and differences. https://sites.google.com/site/edthpdiversity/cultural-pluralism http://drcharlestaylor.com/PluralismMeltingPot.pdf As Greens, we are free to join coalitions and do so when an issue arises which we agree on. We don’t have to forfeit our unique party identity in the process. Asking an official state political party to endorse outside of the party takes away significance of our distinction from other parties. If we want special circumstances, we should propose that specifically instead of making it our policy and writing it in our bylaws. I’ve mentioned more than once on these threads that this is the way PFP does it and it’s a good example of what we could propose. There is a time for solidarity over issues, and a way to achieve this which is not at the expense of losing our identity as a distinct political party. For this reason, I’m voting NO on this proposal. -N On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics. I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique. Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally. As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances. On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote: We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform. The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both. Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation) For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move. If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote: We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement. Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high. Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice VoteEndorsement 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 togpca-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 -- 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 -- 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 listgpca-votes@sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
While I am anarchist and support the objective of the Green Party being an anarchist party, it certainly wasn’t founded as one and has only recently been wisely heading clearly in that direction. And though some socialists still naively support centralized socialism, they also support a lot of really important social advancements that would make our society and the planet a lot better off. Let’s not forget that in the 2016 election a lot of Greens were even ready to support Bernie Sanders who is basically an FDR style capitalist reformer. So the political spectrum of the Green Party is a lot less defined than Thomas is idealizing it to be. A good example of how far the Green Party needs to evolve in this regard is the German Green Party’s unconscionable support of the war on Yugoslavia. So in California elections, we need to form alliances with traditional socialists and others, to get us out from under the thumbs of the corporate parties, while we are also pushing for a shift toward anarchism. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Leavitt Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:39 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Erik, The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics. I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique. Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally. As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances. On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform. The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both. Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation) For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move. If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com<mailto:aemenasche@gmail.com>> wrote: We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement. Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high. Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com<mailto:srbreedlove@gmail.com>> wrote: Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com<mailto:jjarlsberg@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net<mailto:lindap_a@verizon.net>> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<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 -- 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 [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
There is no way we could possibly predict such a correlation would occur between changing the bylaws to endorse other-than-Green and getting needed electoral reforms. It would be a huge leap of faith to believe this would happen and it’s just as likely not to happen, especially since these endorsements have no real bearing on how things like proportional representation could be implemented. Seems to be an extreme route to take, rather than simply forming coalitions around issues and specific legislation and making specific exceptions for endorsements. On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:42 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
While I am anarchist and support the objective of the Green Party being an anarchist party, it certainly wasn’t founded as one and has only recently been wisely heading clearly in that direction.
And though some socialists still naively support centralized socialism, they also support a lot of really important social advancements that would make our society and the planet a lot better off.
Let’s not forget that in the 2016 election a lot of Greens were even ready to support Bernie Sanders who is basically an FDR style capitalist reformer.
So the political spectrum of the Green Party is a lot less defined than Thomas is idealizing it to be.
A good example of how far the Green Party needs to evolve in this regard is the German Green Party’s unconscionable support of the war on Yugoslavia.
So in California elections, we need to form alliances with traditional socialists and others, to get us out from under the thumbs of the corporate parties, while we are also pushing for a shift toward anarchism.
Eric Brooks
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Leavitt *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:39 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
-- 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
Eric, I agree with you, and yes, even in the United States, the Green Party has issues with not living up to its own principles, and includes a lot of folks who see it as essentially a kinder / gentler, less corporate version of the Democratic Party (as you point out with the support for Sanders). I just want to make sure we're all headed in the same direction. Sounds like you and I are, at least. I support your desire to work with socialists of all stripes... even where I disagree philosophically on means and approach, I support alternative voices who share the same end goals. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 8:42 PM Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
While I am anarchist and support the objective of the Green Party being an anarchist party, it certainly wasn’t founded as one and has only recently been wisely heading clearly in that direction.
And though some socialists still naively support centralized socialism, they also support a lot of really important social advancements that would make our society and the planet a lot better off.
Let’s not forget that in the 2016 election a lot of Greens were even ready to support Bernie Sanders who is basically an FDR style capitalist reformer.
So the political spectrum of the Green Party is a lot less defined than Thomas is idealizing it to be.
A good example of how far the Green Party needs to evolve in this regard is the German Green Party’s unconscionable support of the war on Yugoslavia.
So in California elections, we need to form alliances with traditional socialists and others, to get us out from under the thumbs of the corporate parties, while we are also pushing for a shift toward anarchism.
Eric Brooks
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Leavitt *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:39 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Erik,
The Green Party was not created, and its ballot lines do not exist, to provide a political vehicle for a pan-Leftist movement for electoral reform (or anything else). It exists to provide a specific and coherent political alternative to conventional "left/right" politics, rejecting both capitalism and state ownership of the means of production in favor of voluntarist mutualism, rejecting violence and coercion in all forms other than self-defense, both fascism and the
violent overthrow of the apparatus of the state; the differences are myriad. On a practical political basis there are very clear and distinct differences historically, both domestically, and internationally (sometimes manifesting itself in unfortunate alliances elsewhere, in my opinion) between Green and conventional "left" politics.
I ran for City Council jointly campaigning with a doctrinaire Trotskyist who considers the Peace and Freedom Party to be bourgeois sellouts (let alone the Green Party). We can work on a tactical level, with conventional leftists, particularly in a corporate capitalist context where ideological differences are immaterial in the face of organized state violence via predatory crony capitalism, but we lose our justification for existence if we erase all the distinctions that make us unique.
Further, Green politics is distinguished by the fact that there is one single national Green Party (the remnants of the GPUSA aside), not dozens upon dozens of ideological splinter groups (as you illustrate) that have historically displayed a remarkable inability to work together and have gained near zero traction with the general American public, and that combined represent a fraction of the membership and electoral representation and voter registration of the Green Party nationally.
As a narrow tactic, occasionally endorsing non-corporate non-Greens makes sense, even as a state party, but we need to be careful not to blur the distinctions between our movement and party, and those of our tactical allies on the statist left, and to not make it even easier to walk away from the Green Party in pursuit of political ambition than it already is. The statist left parties certainly aren't going to abandon their own ideological distinctions in pursuit of alliances.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I have a hard time seeing the Green Party, nationally, buying into this rainbow coalition of statist and non-statist left parties on the Green Party ballot line approach, and I particularly have a hard time envisioning the fractious and ideologically riven and factionalized American statist left doing so.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 3:40 AM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
We are Eco-Socialist. Read the GPUS Platform.
The 10 Key Values came out of the Green Committees of Correspondence. The GCC was made up of Anarchists and Socialists. There is plenty of room for both.
Coalitions are the only way we grow. What many people have yet to grasp is that the Green Party is the inevitable vehicle for installing Proportional Representation. Every 3rd Party needs us because we are the only ones with the structure to run in every state. We need to open up our doors to the anti-corporate, anti-capitalist left... once we install Proportional Representation those that aren’t “Green Enough” will be free to build their own third party and we can all work in Coalition in a true multiparty system(Proportional Representation)
For those of us within GPCA who operate on a sectarian “I’m better than you.” arrogance... it’s not a good look for us. You want to bash Capitalist Liberal Democrats? I’m with you 100%. Turning our noses up a Peace and Freedom, Socialist Alternative, Progressive Independent Party, African People’s Socialist Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Movement for a People’s Party or Corporate Free Independents is a bad move.
If we don’t create a Independent 3rd Party Primary System to bring all these parties together someone else will. That is the biggest threat. Opening our doors isn’t the danger... closing them is.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
We are actually eco- socialist as of our last Conventuon.
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability.
I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process.
Linda Piera-Avila
Santa Monica
PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
-- 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
Thomas, I have to take issue with your claim that the GP is not a socialist party. It's just not an M-L democratic centralist party. Here's a plank from the GPUS platform: "Instead we will build an economy based on large-scale green public works, municipalization, and workplace and community democracy. Some call this decentralized system 'ecological socialism,' 'communalism,' or the 'cooperative commonwealth,' but whatever the terminology, we believe it will help end labor exploitation, environmental exploitation, and racial, gender, and wealth inequality and bring about economic and social justice due to the positive effects of democratic decision making." [ http://www.gp.org/economic_justice_and_sustainability_2016/#ejEcoEcon] Anyone drawn to the GP because of positions such as this, and aware of and willing to advance a political program which demands end to capitalism, should be open to tactical alliances with other socialist parties. I'm a Green because I'm an eco-socialist and anarcho-syndicalist who is trying to effect change through our electoral system. That doesn't mean I don't have respect for other socialist tendencies; it means that if I'm going to take electoral politics seriously, I have to be willing and able to make political alliances when it's appropriate, which seems to me to be the state of affairs for the GPCA in the spring of 2018. In Unity, Adam Yolo On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement.
Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high.
Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net
wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- 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
Thomas, When I say image problem, I mean most registered Greens that actually do political work don't care about the party. So many people who share our values dismiss our candidates or need the infrastructure of another party. Gayle is a good example of Green values not running as a NPP. In my district a woman stepped up who is 95% green and has hige backing within the progressive circles, while our green candidate, while the right person, doesnt have the resources and social network to run a good campaign. I don't disagree that Greens are different than other socialist parties in many ways. But I have to ask, if not trying to gain state power (a Marxist objective) why are we a political party? I think the tribalism of parties is a negative influence on the political system as is. Where I live, the Republican wins because of tribal hatred for Democrats even though they acknowledge our reps are self-serving. I don't think that sort of tribalism does is any good. To Nicole's point, this proposal isn't saying we endorse candidates from this party or that. It is ending the tribalism prohibition on ever casting an endorsement outside the party. Right now it would be illegal per procedure to endorse Gayle. We have to be willing ro get behind candidates that reflect our values. As a matter of course, that disbars democrats who do not share our principles of antiwar and corporate free by virtue of their participation in that party. A people powered movement is growing. We stand a greater chance to be incredibly influential to candidates aligned with that groundswell if we can use an endorsement as a carrot rather than dismissing them because they are different in a very superficial way. On Mar 26, 4:12 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I find it very dubious that anyone not wanting to run as a Green, who is currently choosing to run as a Dem, or any organization choosing to support such a person, would somehow run as an NPP or a P&F instead (or support an NPP or P&F candidate), in the hope of picking up the Green Party endorsement. Progressives are running as Democrats for simple reasons of political pragmatism. Running as a Democrat gains you much easier access to a broad variety of non-Democratic Party / progressive endorsements (such as those from labor), AND gives you access to a broad array of progressive resources that are party-affiliated and reserved, by bylaw, to Democratic Party candidates (bylaws that are bypassed in only the most exceptional situations, and only in non-partisan races). The value of a Green Party endorsement in no way outweighs that, and by the time it even begins to approach being that valuable, we are unlikely to be endorsing non-Greens, simply because the quality of candidates we attract will be so high. Socialists run as Peace and Freedom Party candidates, and Socialist Alternative, etc., BECAUSE THEY ARE SOCIALISTS. The Green Party specifically IS NOT A SOCIALIST PARTY. It never has been. We are anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian left anarchists, ideologically opposed to conventional Marxist/Leninist statist approaches. We are never going to attract conventional socialist / marxist candidates to run under our banner, because our core principles and historical positioning are incompatible with conventional statist left ideology. We have an "image problem", because of genuine ideological differences. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress.
On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
I agree with Steve Breedlove. If we can get a socialist elected to a position that there is no Green running for, why shouldn't we? And likewise, these parties could endorse Greens if they don't have an opposing candidate. If we have no Green in the race, there is no loss. If we do, there is no loss, only a potential gain in votes if there is no P&F or whatever party. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 3:00 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Linda and Jane. The idea is to form alliances. Greens have an image problem and I know a lot of movers and shakers who are choosing independent or Socialist Alternative or other. The idea is that to break the two party dictatorship we have to form alliances. It is a great symbolic act to endorse a P&F etc. I would rather endorse a qualified candidate in another left party than some of the candidate that run as Greens, whether based on actual policy or on perception of viability. I think the concern that people won't run green is unfounded. People already don't wanna run green which is why many progressive candidates are running Dem with support of more moderate progressive groups like justice dems abd Our Rev and brand new congress. On Mar 26, 2018 2:12 PM, "Jane Jarlsberg" <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else isbetterable to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time Background The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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 -- gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes@sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I have serious reservations when it comes to having faith that there could be consensus within the GPCA in deciding if a, “Green had major problems with positions at odds with our values and platform,” particularly when SGA dels seem to vote on faction lines. Why open the door to such a thing? If this is about McGlauglin, why not propose an endorsement process over specific candidates, rather than writing a blank check right into our bylaws??? If this proposal were to pass, there is no way to know now how it may be used/abused in the future, which is why I am voting NO on endorsing non-Greens through GPCA. Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:12 PM Jane Jarlsberg <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else is better able to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
The Peace & Freedom Party endorsed several Greens, and not that that obligates us to reciprocate, it certainly does not, but the Peace & Freedom Party aligns with our values extraordinarily well. As to the "then they should run as Greens" line, while I agree with the idea that the left needs to unite under the Green banner, we need to consider than in a race, like State Treasurer, where there is no Green, we still may be able to prevent a duopoly win in our unity. How great, to have a socialist Treasurer, regardless of party. -----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office I have serious reservations when it comes to having faith that there could be consensus within the GPCA in deciding if a, “Green had major problems with positions at odds with our values and platform,” particularly when SGA dels seem to vote on faction lines. Why open the door to such a thing? If this is about McGlauglin, why not propose an endorsement process over specific candidates, rather than writing a blank check right into our bylaws??? If this proposal were to pass, there is no way to know now how it may be used/abused in the future, which is why I am voting NO on endorsing non-Greens through GPCA. Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 2:12 PM Jane Jarlsberg <jjarlsberg@gmail.com> wrote: I agree with Linda Piera-Avila, and no one asked me to write my opinion either!! i have my own mind on these issues, but sometimes someone else isbetterable to articulate my thoughts for me!! peace, Jane Jarlsberg On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote: If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own! Sent from my iPhone On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time Background The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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 -- gpca-votes mailing listgpca-votes@sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
That has always been my position as well, Linda. I have been open to discussion this year because in all the years we have been on the ballot, our Party has not grown. I am still struggling; would this expand our influence or wipe us out? I think it is a big risk. Gloria
On Mar 25, 2018, at 10:58 PM, Linda Piera-Avila <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
If a candidate is supportive of our values and doesn’t take corporate donations, that candidate should run as a Green! We will dilute the incentive we have to offer potential recruits if 155 passes. It’s hard enough to vet people who ARE in the Green Party before endorsing them, this will make it even harder if they are not even in our party and this could leave us open to those who would co-opt our ballot line either for their own selfish purposes or worse, to discredit the Green Party. We are a small party - we need to retain our sense as a distinct political party and not give away the store and possibly lose ourselves in the process. Linda Piera-Avila Santa Monica PS No one asked me to write this. I am very concerned about this proposal on my own!
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #155
Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
Background
The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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
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
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
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 General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are 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
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined? “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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
I believe that this would allow us to choose a Peace and Freedom or independent candidate over a Green, but my assessment is that we would only do that if the Green had major problems with positions at odds with our values and platform. Eric Brooks SF, CA -----Original Message----- From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of timeka drew Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:35 AM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined? “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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Fellow Greens, Please do the math. We are a small party with the best values. Unfortunately elections are won on votes not necessarily on values. Our only chance, barring some very unexpected circumstances, to see our values held by elected candidates is through coalition building with other left of center parties and people. Regarding having non Greens take our ballot line, the top two election format makes this a moot point. We don’t have a guaranteed statewide election ballot line. I agree with Eric who postulates that should we have a Green in the race, the only circumstance where Greens would support a non Green opponent would be if the Green candidate does no represent Party values. Regarding coalition building, how can we ask others to join us in support of our candidate if we are by Bylaw prohibited from backing a non Green progressive? We can be pure and isolated and remain electorally irrelevant for statewide offices. Gayle McLaughlin is an excellent example of why we should not limit ourselves by rule from supporting non Greens. I had a Russian bot write this post. Just kidding. Jeff Lebow OC Green Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 1:32 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
I believe that this would allow us to choose a Peace and Freedom or independent candidate over a Green, but my assessment is that we would only do that if the Green had major problems with positions at odds with our values and platform.
Eric Brooks SF, CA
-----Original Message----- From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of timeka drew Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:35 AM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- 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
Given the long history of Greens becoming Democrats when it suits them, as they move up the ladder, it is actually quite a victory that Gayle McLaughlin chose NOT to become a Democrat In order to run a statewide campaign, and could easily have done so and probably won the Lieutenant Governor seat. By running as No Party Preference, she presents a huge conundrum for the Democrats. If they try to decimate her, they will further alienate the tons of Bernie Democrats who have already endorsed her. And if they do not, then a rogue actor is in their territory. Will the Sierra Club endorse her? This presents a conundrum for them too, with their long history of endorsing Democrats-only (even ones who were later taken away in handcuffs by the FBI). Gayle shook things up by running NPP, all around, and now everyone has to think a bit more about where they stand and what they believe. That this would be somewhat divisive within the Green Party is inevitable. It’s a normal response and shows that we are diverse in our thinking. Currently I see us arguing about Party versus people. But really, of course, we all agree on wanting a better world here in California. The arguments for Party loyalty are bringing up concerns about the long-term impact on people, if the Green Party allows or supports candidates defecting with no consequence. The basic premise is that the Green Party is good for people and we must support it and grow it for that reason. I think we’re all in agreement on that basic underlying idea. And the arguments for people over Party are concerned about the near term impact on people if a Democrat wins, and not Gayle - they see this as an important opportunity to shake up the stranglehold by Democrats on our state government - now, this year. I think we can all agree, given the large number of endorsements she already has by Progressive Democrats, County Greens, P&F and others, that she has one of the most powerful non-corporate statewide campaigns to potentially win the election. Importantly, this is not a debate about platform and issues – – this is something else. Her decisions, her votes, her work as a Lieutenant Governor are likely all what we would agree with, and what the vast majority of Californians would agree with. This is about party loyalty, but also about the real-life day-to-day events for average people. While that sounds like a least-worst argument, we know that it is not, since we know that Gayle is actually a real Progressive through and through, and will never vote for war, or for oil, or for billionaires - that she will never vote in any of the ways we abhor. So that means that this is really only about a hypothesized outcome relating to party loyalty… On the one side there is the idea that her winning the race as an NPP will drain the Green Party of support, damage the party and create confusion, leading to a long-term loss overall for Greens. A different hypothesis might say that as an elected member of our state government, she could be an advocate for proportional representation and RCV, leading to an exponential *growth* of the Green Party. She could advocate for everything we believe, from within the state government, because she is a true Progressive. To me, this is an amazing opportunity that I never thought would happen this soon. I think the risk of the more negative proposed future is worth the potential huge benefit of the positive outcome. - Victoria Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
And what if the voters love her and next time she says she is considering running as a Green because..... Genevieve Marcus On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Given the long history of Greens becoming Democrats when it suits them, as they move up the ladder, it is actually quite a victory that Gayle McLaughlin chose NOT to become a Democrat In order to run a statewide campaign, and could easily have done so and probably won the Lieutenant Governor seat.
By running as No Party Preference, she presents a huge conundrum for the Democrats. If they try to decimate her, they will further alienate the tons of Bernie Democrats who have already endorsed her. And if they do not, then a rogue actor is in their territory.
Will the Sierra Club endorse her? This presents a conundrum for them too, with their long history of endorsing Democrats-only (even ones who were later taken away in handcuffs by the FBI).
Gayle shook things up by running NPP, all around, and now everyone has to think a bit more about where they stand and what they believe.
That this would be somewhat divisive within the Green Party is inevitable. It’s a normal response and shows that we are diverse in our thinking.
Currently I see us arguing about Party versus people. But really, of course, we all agree on wanting a better world here in California.
The arguments for Party loyalty are bringing up concerns about the long-term impact on people, if the Green Party allows or supports candidates defecting with no consequence. The basic premise is that the Green Party is good for people and we must support it and grow it for that reason. I think we’re all in agreement on that basic underlying idea.
And the arguments for people over Party are concerned about the near term impact on people if a Democrat wins, and not Gayle - they see this as an important opportunity to shake up the stranglehold by Democrats on our state government - now, this year. I think we can all agree, given the large number of endorsements she already has by Progressive Democrats, County Greens, P&F and others, that she has one of the most powerful non-corporate statewide campaigns to potentially win the election.
Importantly, this is not a debate about platform and issues – – this is something else. Her decisions, her votes, her work as a Lieutenant Governor are likely all what we would agree with, and what the vast majority of Californians would agree with.
This is about party loyalty, but also about the real-life day-to-day events for average people.
While that sounds like a least-worst argument, we know that it is not, since we know that Gayle is actually a real Progressive through and through, and will never vote for war, or for oil, or for billionaires - that she will never vote in any of the ways we abhor.
So that means that this is really only about a hypothesized outcome relating to party loyalty…
On the one side there is the idea that her winning the race as an NPP will drain the Green Party of support, damage the party and create confusion, leading to a long-term loss overall for Greens.
A different hypothesis might say that as an elected member of our state government, she could be an advocate for proportional representation and RCV, leading to an exponential *growth* of the Green Party. She could advocate for everything we believe, from within the state government, because she is a true Progressive.
To me, this is an amazing opportunity that I never thought would happen this soon. I think the risk of the more negative proposed future is worth the potential huge benefit of the positive outcome.
- Victoria
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- 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 *
Is there a voting page with all the voting items listed together? On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:51 PM Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
And what if the voters love her and next time she says she is considering running as a Green because.....
Genevieve Marcus
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Given the long history of Greens becoming Democrats when it suits them, as they move up the ladder, it is actually quite a victory that Gayle McLaughlin chose NOT to become a Democrat In order to run a statewide campaign, and could easily have done so and probably won the Lieutenant Governor seat.
By running as No Party Preference, she presents a huge conundrum for the Democrats. If they try to decimate her, they will further alienate the tons of Bernie Democrats who have already endorsed her. And if they do not, then a rogue actor is in their territory.
Will the Sierra Club endorse her? This presents a conundrum for them too, with their long history of endorsing Democrats-only (even ones who were later taken away in handcuffs by the FBI).
Gayle shook things up by running NPP, all around, and now everyone has to think a bit more about where they stand and what they believe.
That this would be somewhat divisive within the Green Party is inevitable. It’s a normal response and shows that we are diverse in our thinking.
Currently I see us arguing about Party versus people. But really, of course, we all agree on wanting a better world here in California.
The arguments for Party loyalty are bringing up concerns about the long-term impact on people, if the Green Party allows or supports candidates defecting with no consequence. The basic premise is that the Green Party is good for people and we must support it and grow it for that reason. I think we’re all in agreement on that basic underlying idea.
And the arguments for people over Party are concerned about the near term impact on people if a Democrat wins, and not Gayle - they see this as an important opportunity to shake up the stranglehold by Democrats on our state government - now, this year. I think we can all agree, given the large number of endorsements she already has by Progressive Democrats, County Greens, P&F and others, that she has one of the most powerful non-corporate statewide campaigns to potentially win the election.
Importantly, this is not a debate about platform and issues – – this is something else. Her decisions, her votes, her work as a Lieutenant Governor are likely all what we would agree with, and what the vast majority of Californians would agree with.
This is about party loyalty, but also about the real-life day-to-day events for average people.
While that sounds like a least-worst argument, we know that it is not, since we know that Gayle is actually a real Progressive through and through, and will never vote for war, or for oil, or for billionaires - that she will never vote in any of the ways we abhor.
So that means that this is really only about a hypothesized outcome relating to party loyalty…
On the one side there is the idea that her winning the race as an NPP will drain the Green Party of support, damage the party and create confusion, leading to a long-term loss overall for Greens.
A different hypothesis might say that as an elected member of our state government, she could be an advocate for proportional representation and RCV, leading to an exponential *growth* of the Green Party. She could advocate for everything we believe, from within the state government, because she is a true Progressive.
To me, this is an amazing opportunity that I never thought would happen this soon. I think the risk of the more negative proposed future is worth the potential huge benefit of the positive outcome.
- Victoria
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- 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
More reasons to support Gayle . . . From an email: Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt. Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be their vehicle for opposing health care reform. On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and destabilize California’s economy.” Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Vic said it best. Bob, nice addendum. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 3:24 PM Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
More reasons to support Gayle . . . From an email:
*Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt. Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be their vehicle for opposing health care reform.*
*On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and destabilize California’s economy.”*
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- 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
Soooooooooo...... Is this whole proposal about Gayle??? PFP has their bylaws written in a way that makes it clear they only endorse of their party, with an exception. We could have done something similar but instead have a proposal that is so open about endorsements that it seems there is no real point in having a distinct party at all. The deadline has passed for state parties to share their endorsement designations on the printed ballot and so much of this is moot. I’m voting NO on this proposal, as it seems to be written with next-to-no foresight, leaves too much open for interpretation, and encourages candidates to not run Green. -N http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws ARTICLE VIII – ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES Section 1: No endorsements of candidates for California public offices shall be made by the State Central Committee or in the name of the “Peace and Freedom Party” or of the “California Peace and Freedom Party” except under the provisions of this article. County central committees and other local and regional party organizations may make other endorsements consistent with their own bylaws and any endorsements made under this article, but such endorsements must specify the body that made them. Only endorsements made under this article shall appear in ballot pamphlets, and all such endorsements shall be submitted to all appropriate election officials for publication in ballot pamphlets. Section 2: The default procedure described in section 3 of this article shall be used for all endorsements unless the State Central Committee adopts an alternative procedure by majority vote at a meeting at least 2 months prior to the deadline for candidates to file in any election to which the procedure applies. No such alternative procedure shall specify any candidates to be endorsed, nor shall it provide for any binding endorsement decisions to be made within one week of its adoption. Any alternative procedure shall be adopted for specific elections or for elections during a specific time period, to end no later than the end of the second calendar year after the State Central Committee meeting at which it is adopted. Section 3 Default endorsement procedure: (A) Endorsements of candidates for statewide office shall be made by vote of the State Central Committee at a meeting whose notice says that endorsements for such offices will be considered. (B) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which at least 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by joint action of those county central committees. For purposes of this section, an active Peace and Freedom Party county central committee is one that (1) holds regular meetings at least once every three months; and (2) includes at least one member in good standing of the State Central Committee or at least one person who attended one of the State Central Committee’s three most recent meetings. (C) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which fewer than 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by the State Central Committee as for statewide office. (D) For purposes of this section, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate is a candidate who is registered as Peace and Freedom and who will be listed on the ballot as affiliated with or preferring the Peace and Freedom Party. (E) In endorsements made by a single body, a simple majority vote of those present and voting suffices. (F) In endorsements made by several bodies acting jointly, a simple majority vote of each body of those present and voting suffices. (G) If an election is called too close to the filing deadline for the State Central Committee or for all relevant county central committees to act under paragraphs (E) or (F), the State Executive Committee or the state officers may make endorsements. (H) If after an endorsement decision is made, circumstances change so that there are additional or fewer Peace and Freedom Party candidates for the office than were known at the time of the endorsement decision, the State Executive Committee or the state officers may reconsider the endorsement decision. 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. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:24 PM Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
More reasons to support Gayle . . . From an email:
*Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt. Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be their vehicle for opposing health care reform.*
*On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and destabilize California’s economy.”*
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- 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
Well said, Nicole! Instead of proposing a one time exception for Gayle or a similar designation that shows support without being a full on endorsement (like we have done in LA County), this proposal is changing the bylaws without thought to what the future may bring and what players may come onto our stage. You hit the nail on the head, "no real point in having a distinct party at all." We will let others cannabalize us until we will just be a political interest club instead of a bona fide political party worthy of respect. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Soooooooooo...... Is this whole proposal about Gayle??? PFP has their bylaws written in a way that makes it clear they only endorse of their party, with an exception. We could have done something similar but instead have a proposal that is so open about endorsements that it seems there is no real point in having a distinct party at all. The deadline has passed for state parties to share their endorsement designations on the printed ballot and so much of this is moot. I’m voting NO on this proposal, as it seems to be written with next-to-no foresight, leaves too much open for interpretation, and encourages candidates to not run Green. -N http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws ARTICLE VIII – ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES Section 1: No endorsements of candidates for California public offices shall be made by the State Central Committee or in the name of the “Peace and Freedom Party” or of the “California Peace and Freedom Party” except under the provisions of this article. County central committees and other local and regional party organizations may make other endorsements consistent with their own bylaws and any endorsements made under this article, but such endorsements must specify the body that made them. Only endorsements made under this article shall appear in ballot pamphlets, and all such endorsements shall be submitted to all appropriate election officials for publication in ballot pamphlets. Section 2: The default procedure described in section 3 of this article shall be used for all endorsements unless the State Central Committee adopts an alternative procedure by majority vote at a meeting at least 2 months prior to the deadline for candidates to file in any election to which the procedure applies. No such alternative procedure shall specify any candidates to be endorsed, nor shall it provide for any binding endorsement decisions to be made within one week of its adoption. Any alternative procedure shall be adopted for specific elections or for elections during a specific time period, to end no later than the end of the second calendar year after the State Central Committee meeting at which it is adopted. Section 3 Default endorsement procedure: (A) Endorsements of candidates for statewide office shall be made by vote of the State Central Committee at a meeting whose notice says that endorsements for such offices will be considered. (B) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which at least 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by joint action of those county central committees. For purposes of this section, an active Peace and Freedom Party county central committee is one that (1) holds regular meetings at least once every three months; and (2) includes at least one member in good standing of the State Central Committee or at least one person who attended one of the State Central Committee’s three most recent meetings. (C) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which fewer than 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by the State Central Committee as for statewide office. (D) For purposes of this section, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate is a candidate who is registered as Peace and Freedom and who will be listed on the ballot as affiliated with or preferring the Peace and Freedom Party. (E) In endorsements made by a single body, a simple majority vote of those present and voting suffices. (F) In endorsements made by several bodies acting jointly, a simple majority vote of each body of those present and voting suffices. (G) If an election is called too close to the filing deadline for the State Central Committee or for all relevant county central committees to act under paragraphs (E) or (F), the State Executive Committee or the state officers may make endorsements. (H) If after an endorsement decision is made, circumstances change so that there are additional or fewer Peace and Freedom Party candidates for the office than were known at the time of the endorsement decision, the State Executive Committee or the state officers may reconsider the endorsement decision. 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. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:24 PM Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: More reasons to support Gayle . . . From an email: Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt. Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be their vehicle for opposing health care reform. On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and destabilize California’s economy.” Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote: Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined? “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.” On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: 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. -- 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 listgpca-votes@sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
To clarify the record on this, the proposal to allow ourselves to endorse non-Green candidates was brought forward by Greens who want to build a strong, broad movement, based in mutual aid, with Peace and Freedom, other socialists, and independent campaigns which share our values. Endorsing Gayle McLaughlin, while obviously falling into that category, was not the purpose of the proposal. And we can’t very well get the Peace and Freedom party to start endorsing our candidates, if we as the largest left third party, don’t reach out and endorse their candidates first. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of lindap_a@verizon.net Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:48 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Well said, Nicole! Instead of proposing a one time exception for Gayle or a similar designation that shows support without being a full on endorsement (like we have done in LA County), this proposal is changing the bylaws without thought to what the future may bring and what players may come onto our stage. You hit the nail on the head, "no real point in having a distinct party at all." We will let others cannabalize us until we will just be a political interest club instead of a bona fide political party worthy of respect. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Soooooooooo...... Is this whole proposal about Gayle??? PFP has their bylaws written in a way that makes it clear they only endorse of their party, with an exception. We could have done something similar but instead have a proposal that is so open about endorsements that it seems there is no real point in having a distinct party at all. The deadline has passed for state parties to share their endorsement designations on the printed ballot and so much of this is moot. I’m voting NO on this proposal, as it seems to be written with next-to-no foresight, leaves too much open for interpretation, and encourages candidates to not run Green. -N http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws ARTICLE VIII – ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES Section 1: No endorsements of candidates for California public offices shall be made by the State Central Committee or in the name of the “Peace and Freedom Party” or of the “California Peace and Freedom Party” except under the provisions of this article. County central committees and other local and regional party organizations may make other endorsements consistent with their own bylaws and any endorsements made under this article, but such endorsements must specify the body that made them. Only endorsements made under this article shall appear in ballot pamphlets, and all such endorsements shall be submitted to all appropriate election officials for publication in ballot pamphlets. Section 2: The default procedure described in section 3 of this article shall be used for all endorsements unless the State Central Committee adopts an alternative procedure by majority vote at a meeting at least 2 months prior to the deadline for candidates to file in any election to which the procedure applies. No such alternative procedure shall specify any candidates to be endorsed, nor shall it provide for any binding endorsement decisions to be made within one week of its adoption. Any alternative procedure shall be adopted for specific elections or for elections during a specific time period, to end no later than the end of the second calendar year after the State Central Committee meeting at which it is adopted. Section 3 Default endorsement procedure: (A) Endorsements of candidates for statewide office shall be made by vote of the State Central Committee at a meeting whose notice says that endorsements for such offices will be considered. (B) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which at least 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by joint action of those county central committees. For purposes of this section, an active Peace and Freedom Party county central committee is one that (1) holds regular meetings at least once every three months; and (2) includes at least one member in good standing of the State Central Committee or at least one person who attended one of the State Central Committee’s three most recent meetings. (C) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which fewer than 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by the State Central Committee as for statewide office. (D) For purposes of this section, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate is a candidate who is registered as Peace and Freedom and who will be listed on the ballot as affiliated with or preferring the Peace and Freedom Party. (E) In endorsements made by a single body, a simple majority vote of those present and voting suffices. (F) In endorsements made by several bodies acting jointly, a simple majority vote of each body of those present and voting suffices. (G) If an election is called too close to the filing deadline for the State Central Committee or for all relevant county central committees to act under paragraphs (E) or (F), the State Executive Committee or the state officers may make endorsements. (H) If after an endorsement decision is made, circumstances change so that there are additional or fewer Peace and Freedom Party candidates for the office than were known at the time of the endorsement decision, the State Executive Committee or the state officers may reconsider the endorsement decision. 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. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:24 PM Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: More reasons to support Gayle . . . From an email: Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt. Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be their vehicle for opposing health care reform. On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and destabilize California’s economy.” Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com<mailto:timekadrew@gmail.com>> wrote: Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined? “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.” On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: 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. -- 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:votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
This 2018 election, we've seen not only Gayle McLaughlin endorse Greens but also the Peace and Freedom Party. They've *endorsed Greens*; now it's up to us Greens as to whether we will show any solidarity back. The California Peace & Freedom Party has endorsed our local Green Party candidate Jason Kishineff who is running for Congressional District 5 against the incumbant Democrat Mike Thompson. Peace & Freedom Party put their endorsements of Greens in several of the local County voter pamphlets that will go to all of the registered voters in those counties and Peace & Freedom Party reached out to alert us about the free listings available for the Green Party to be able to put our endorsements in the local County voter pamphlets as well. There are more cases like those as well as growing collaboration and coalition building across non-corporate parties and organizations. That is why we want to give the General Assembly/SGA the freedom to vote on these. June Brashares Sonoma County On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:47 PM, <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote:
Well said, Nicole! Instead of proposing a one time exception for Gayle or a similar designation that shows support without being a full on endorsement (like we have done in LA County), this proposal is changing the bylaws without thought to what the future may bring and what players may come onto our stage. You hit the nail on the head, "no real point in having a distinct party at all." We will let others cannabalize us until we will just be a political interest club instead of a bona fide political party worthy of respect. Linda
-----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Soooooooooo...... Is this whole proposal about Gayle???
PFP has their bylaws written in a way that makes it clear they only endorse of their party, with an exception.
We could have done something similar but instead have a proposal that is so open about endorsements that it seems there is no real point in having a distinct party at all.
The deadline has passed for state parties to share their endorsement designations on the printed ballot and so much of this is moot.
I’m voting NO on this proposal, as it seems to be written with next-to-no foresight, leaves too much open for interpretation, and encourages candidates to not run Green.
-N
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws
ARTICLE VIII – ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES Section 1: No endorsements of candidates for California public offices shall be made by the State Central Committee or in the name of the “Peace and Freedom Party” or of the “California Peace and Freedom Party” except under the provisions of this article. County central committees and other local and regional party organizations may make other endorsements consistent with their own bylaws and any endorsements made under this article, but such endorsements must specify the body that made them. Only endorsements made under this article shall appear in ballot pamphlets, and all such endorsements shall be submitted to all appropriate election officials for publication in ballot pamphlets. Section 2: The default procedure described in section 3 of this article shall be used for all endorsements unless the State Central Committee adopts an alternative procedure by majority vote at a meeting at least 2 months prior to the deadline for candidates to file in any election to which the procedure applies. No such alternative procedure shall specify any candidates to be endorsed, nor shall it provide for any binding endorsement decisions to be made within one week of its adoption. Any alternative procedure shall be adopted for specific elections or for elections during a specific time period, to end no later than the end of the second calendar year after the State Central Committee meeting at which it is adopted. Section 3 Default endorsement procedure: (A) Endorsements of candidates for statewide office shall be made by vote of the State Central Committee at a meeting whose notice says that endorsements for such offices will be considered. (B) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which at least 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by joint action of those county central committees. For purposes of this section, an active Peace and Freedom Party county central committee is one that (1) holds regular meetings at least once every three months; and (2) includes at least one member in good standing of the State Central Committee or at least one person who attended one of the State Central Committee’s three most recent meetings. (C) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which fewer than 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by the State Central Committee as for statewide office. (D) For purposes of this section, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate is a candidate who is registered as Peace and Freedom and who will be listed on the ballot as affiliated with or preferring the Peace and Freedom Party. (E) In endorsements made by a single body, a simple majority vote of those present and voting suffices. (F) In endorsements made by several bodies acting jointly, a simple majority vote of each body of those present and voting suffices. (G) If an election is called too close to the filing deadline for the State Central Committee or for all relevant county central committees to act under paragraphs (E) or (F), the State Executive Committee or the state officers may make endorsements. (H) If after an endorsement decision is made, circumstances change so that there are additional or fewer Peace and Freedom Party candidates for the office than were known at the time of the endorsement decision, the State Executive Committee or the state officers may reconsider the endorsement decision. 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.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:24 PM Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
More reasons to support Gayle . . . From an email:
*Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt. Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be their vehicle for opposing health care reform.* *On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and destabilize California’s economy.”*
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- 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
I think a nonsectarian approach of the GPCA showing a willingness to endorse NPP and P & F candidates who run corporate free campaigns consistent with Green values can only help our Party as well as the causes we support. Ann Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:25 AM, June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote:
This 2018 election, we've seen not only Gayle McLaughlin endorse Greens but also the Peace and Freedom Party. They've endorsed Greens; now it's up to us Greens as to whether we will show any solidarity back.
The California Peace & Freedom Party has endorsed our local Green Party candidate Jason Kishineff who is running for Congressional District 5 against the incumbant Democrat Mike Thompson. Peace & Freedom Party put their endorsements of Greens in several of the local County voter pamphlets that will go to all of the registered voters in those counties and Peace & Freedom Party reached out to alert us about the free listings available for the Green Party to be able to put our endorsements in the local County voter pamphlets as well.
There are more cases like those as well as growing collaboration and coalition building across non-corporate parties and organizations. That is why we want to give the General Assembly/SGA the freedom to vote on these.
June Brashares Sonoma County
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:47 PM, <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote: Well said, Nicole! Instead of proposing a one time exception for Gayle or a similar designation that shows support without being a full on endorsement (like we have done in LA County), this proposal is changing the bylaws without thought to what the future may bring and what players may come onto our stage. You hit the nail on the head, "no real point in having a distinct party at all." We will let others cannabalize us until we will just be a political interest club instead of a bona fide political party worthy of respect. Linda
-----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Soooooooooo...... Is this whole proposal about Gayle???
PFP has their bylaws written in a way that makes it clear they only endorse of their party, with an exception.
We could have done something similar but instead have a proposal that is so open about endorsements that it seems there is no real point in having a distinct party at all.
The deadline has passed for state parties to share their endorsement designations on the printed ballot and so much of this is moot.
I’m voting NO on this proposal, as it seems to be written with next-to-no foresight, leaves too much open for interpretation, and encourages candidates to not run Green.
-N
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws
ARTICLE VIII – ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES Section 1: No endorsements of candidates for California public offices shall be made by the State Central Committee or in the name of the “Peace and Freedom Party” or of the “California Peace and Freedom Party” except under the provisions of this article. County central committees and other local and regional party organizations may make other endorsements consistent with their own bylaws and any endorsements made under this article, but such endorsements must specify the body that made them. Only endorsements made under this article shall appear in ballot pamphlets, and all such endorsements shall be submitted to all appropriate election officials for publication in ballot pamphlets. Section 2: The default procedure described in section 3 of this article shall be used for all endorsements unless the State Central Committee adopts an alternative procedure by majority vote at a meeting at least 2 months prior to the deadline for candidates to file in any election to which the procedure applies. No such alternative procedure shall specify any candidates to be endorsed, nor shall it provide for any binding endorsement decisions to be made within one week of its adoption. Any alternative procedure shall be adopted for specific elections or for elections during a specific time period, to end no later than the end of the second calendar year after the State Central Committee meeting at which it is adopted. Section 3 Default endorsement procedure: (A) Endorsements of candidates for statewide office shall be made by vote of the State Central Committee at a meeting whose notice says that endorsements for such offices will be considered. (B) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which at least 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by joint action of those county central committees. For purposes of this section, an active Peace and Freedom Party county central committee is one that (1) holds regular meetings at least once every three months; and (2) includes at least one member in good standing of the State Central Committee or at least one person who attended one of the State Central Committee’s three most recent meetings. (C) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which fewer than 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by the State Central Committee as for statewide office. (D) For purposes of this section, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate is a candidate who is registered as Peace and Freedom and who will be listed on the ballot as affiliated with or preferring the Peace and Freedom Party. (E) In endorsements made by a single body, a simple majority vote of those present and voting suffices. (F) In endorsements made by several bodies acting jointly, a simple majority vote of each body of those present and voting suffices. (G) If an election is called too close to the filing deadline for the State Central Committee or for all relevant county central committees to act under paragraphs (E) or (F), the State Executive Committee or the state officers may make endorsements. (H) If after an endorsement decision is made, circumstances change so that there are additional or fewer Peace and Freedom Party candidates for the office than were known at the time of the endorsement decision, the State Executive Committee or the state officers may reconsider the endorsement decision. 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.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:24 PM Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: More reasons to support Gayle . . . From an email:
Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt. Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be their vehicle for opposing health care reform. On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and destabilize California’s economy.”
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- 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
First, I want to say how glad I am to see such a respectful dialogue about a very important decision, and to see a lot of women weighing in, along with a lot of men. Second, I sure hope 155 passes. The Green Party seems to be perceived as – I don't know what – a group of people over there somewhere tilting at windmills, being pure, or insular, or “we're right you're wrong.” The Green Party I want is not that way, but I hear that perception out there. When someone says we need a new political party that’s really progressive I have to pinch myself. The Green Party is that “new” party we need. But it's like Facebook (of which I’m not a big fan) or Twitter (I did like the 140-character challenge): you have to like and follow and endorse other people to get them to reciprocate. We need to build the Green Party AND Green Values like justice, peace, environment, and real democracy, AND the walk-your-talk value of not taking the billionaire bosses’ money. Passing ID #155 will help build what we have been building for 26+ years and I do think more people will register Green when we are allowed to reach out to them and endorse them. Also, this is about trusting future generations of Greens, trusting that they won’t be fooled or foolish. RELATED: Come to the General Assembly in June - GROW is planning a focus on voter registration as another way to build a strong Green Party. Hope to see everyone there! Laura Wells On Mar 27, 2018, at 6:28 AM, Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote: I think a nonsectarian approach of the GPCA showing a willingness to endorse NPP and P & F candidates who run corporate free campaigns consistent with Green values can only help our Party as well as the causes we support. Ann Sent from my iPhone On Mar 27, 2018, at 1:25 AM, June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote:
This 2018 election, we've seen not only Gayle McLaughlin endorse Greens but also the Peace and Freedom Party. They've endorsed Greens; now it's up to us Greens as to whether we will show any solidarity back.
The California Peace & Freedom Party has endorsed our local Green Party candidate Jason Kishineff who is running for Congressional District 5 against the incumbant Democrat Mike Thompson. Peace & Freedom Party put their endorsements of Greens in several of the local County voter pamphlets that will go to all of the registered voters in those counties and Peace & Freedom Party reached out to alert us about the free listings available for the Green Party to be able to put our endorsements in the local County voter pamphlets as well.
There are more cases like those as well as growing collaboration and coalition building across non-corporate parties and organizations. That is why we want to give the General Assembly/SGA the freedom to vote on these.
June Brashares Sonoma County
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:47 PM, <lindap_a@verizon.net> wrote: Well said, Nicole! Instead of proposing a one time exception for Gayle or a similar designation that shows support without being a full on endorsement (like we have done in LA County), this proposal is changing the bylaws without thought to what the future may bring and what players may come onto our stage. You hit the nail on the head, "no real point in having a distinct party at all." We will let others cannabalize us until we will just be a political interest club instead of a bona fide political party worthy of respect. Linda
-----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office
Soooooooooo...... Is this whole proposal about Gayle???
PFP has their bylaws written in a way that makes it clear they only endorse of their party, with an exception.
We could have done something similar but instead have a proposal that is so open about endorsements that it seems there is no real point in having a distinct party at all.
The deadline has passed for state parties to share their endorsement designations on the printed ballot and so much of this is moot.
I’m voting NO on this proposal, as it seems to be written with next-to-no foresight, leaves too much open for interpretation, and encourages candidates to not run Green.
-N
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws
ARTICLE VIII – ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES Section 1: No endorsements of candidates for California public offices shall be made by the State Central Committee or in the name of the “Peace and Freedom Party” or of the “California Peace and Freedom Party” except under the provisions of this article. County central committees and other local and regional party organizations may make other endorsements consistent with their own bylaws and any endorsements made under this article, but such endorsements must specify the body that made them. Only endorsements made under this article shall appear in ballot pamphlets, and all such endorsements shall be submitted to all appropriate election officials for publication in ballot pamphlets. Section 2: The default procedure described in section 3 of this article shall be used for all endorsements unless the State Central Committee adopts an alternative procedure by majority vote at a meeting at least 2 months prior to the deadline for candidates to file in any election to which the procedure applies. No such alternative procedure shall specify any candidates to be endorsed, nor shall it provide for any binding endorsement decisions to be made within one week of its adoption. Any alternative procedure shall be adopted for specific elections or for elections during a specific time period, to end no later than the end of the second calendar year after the State Central Committee meeting at which it is adopted. Section 3 Default endorsement procedure: (A) Endorsements of candidates for statewide office shall be made by vote of the State Central Committee at a meeting whose notice says that endorsements for such offices will be considered. (B) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which at least 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by joint action of those county central committees. For purposes of this section, an active Peace and Freedom Party county central committee is one that (1) holds regular meetings at least once every three months; and (2) includes at least one member in good standing of the State Central Committee or at least one person who attended one of the State Central Committee’s three most recent meetings. (C) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which fewer than 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by the State Central Committee as for statewide office. (D) For purposes of this section, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate is a candidate who is registered as Peace and Freedom and who will be listed on the ballot as affiliated with or preferring the Peace and Freedom Party. (E) In endorsements made by a single body, a simple majority vote of those present and voting suffices. (F) In endorsements made by several bodies acting jointly, a simple majority vote of each body of those present and voting suffices. (G) If an election is called too close to the filing deadline for the State Central Committee or for all relevant county central committees to act under paragraphs (E) or (F), the State Executive Committee or the state officers may make endorsements. (H) If after an endorsement decision is made, circumstances change so that there are additional or fewer Peace and Freedom Party candidates for the office than were known at the time of the endorsement decision, the State Executive Committee or the state officers may reconsider the endorsement decision. 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.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:24 PM Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: More reasons to support Gayle . . . From an email:
Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt. Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be their vehicle for opposing health care reform. On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and destabilize California’s economy.”
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Are my emails not getting through? Peace & Freedom has endorsed several Greens this election, including myself. -----Original Message----- From: Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2018 8:36 pm Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Soooooooooo...... Is this whole proposal about Gayle??? PFP has their bylaws written in a way that makes it clear they only endorse of their party, with an exception. We could have done something similar but instead have a proposal that is so open about endorsements that it seems there is no real point in having a distinct party at all. The deadline has passed for state parties to share their endorsement designations on the printed ballot and so much of this is moot. I’m voting NO on this proposal, as it seems to be written with next-to-no foresight, leaves too much open for interpretation, and encourages candidates to not run Green. -N http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/about-us/by-laws ARTICLE VIII – ENDORSEMENT OF CANDIDATES Section 1: No endorsements of candidates for California public offices shall be made by the State Central Committee or in the name of the “Peace and Freedom Party” or of the “California Peace and Freedom Party” except under the provisions of this article. County central committees and other local and regional party organizations may make other endorsements consistent with their own bylaws and any endorsements made under this article, but such endorsements must specify the body that made them. Only endorsements made under this article shall appear in ballot pamphlets, and all such endorsements shall be submitted to all appropriate election officials for publication in ballot pamphlets. Section 2: The default procedure described in section 3 of this article shall be used for all endorsements unless the State Central Committee adopts an alternative procedure by majority vote at a meeting at least 2 months prior to the deadline for candidates to file in any election to which the procedure applies. No such alternative procedure shall specify any candidates to be endorsed, nor shall it provide for any binding endorsement decisions to be made within one week of its adoption. Any alternative procedure shall be adopted for specific elections or for elections during a specific time period, to end no later than the end of the second calendar year after the State Central Committee meeting at which it is adopted. Section 3 Default endorsement procedure: (A) Endorsements of candidates for statewide office shall be made by vote of the State Central Committee at a meeting whose notice says that endorsements for such offices will be considered. (B) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which at least 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by joint action of those county central committees. For purposes of this section, an active Peace and Freedom Party county central committee is one that (1) holds regular meetings at least once every three months; and (2) includes at least one member in good standing of the State Central Committee or at least one person who attended one of the State Central Committee’s three most recent meetings. (C) Endorsements of candidates for non-statewide office in which fewer than 75% of the registered voters eligible to vote for the office live in counties with active Peace and Freedom Party county central committees shall be made by the State Central Committee as for statewide office. (D) For purposes of this section, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate is a candidate who is registered as Peace and Freedom and who will be listed on the ballot as affiliated with or preferring the Peace and Freedom Party. (E) In endorsements made by a single body, a simple majority vote of those present and voting suffices. (F) In endorsements made by several bodies acting jointly, a simple majority vote of each body of those present and voting suffices. (G) If an election is called too close to the filing deadline for the State Central Committee or for all relevant county central committees to act under paragraphs (E) or (F), the State Executive Committee or the state officers may make endorsements. (H) If after an endorsement decision is made, circumstances change so that there are additional or fewer Peace and Freedom Party candidates for the office than were known at the time of the endorsement decision, the State Executive Committee or the state officers may reconsider the endorsement decision. 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. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:24 PM Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: More reasons to support Gayle . . . From an email: Single-payer Medicare-for-All foes are taking no chances on the Lt. Governor race in California, and they’ve found wealthy candidate to be their vehicle for opposing health care reform. On Thursday, wealthy Sacramento developer Angelo Tsakopoulos donated $2,020,000 to a super PAC for his daughter, Eleni Kounalakis, who is running for Lt. Governor. The super PAC is sponsored by the California Medical Association, which opposed the California universal health care bill, SB 562, saying it “would dismantle the healthcare marketplace and destabilize California’s economy.” Sent from my iPhone On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote: Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined? “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.” On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: 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. -- 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 listgpca-votes@sfgreens.orghttps://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
As I understand it, so long as the Democratic Party itself receives "corporate" funding, even a "good Democrat" (Bernie Sanders, for example, or Congressperson Ro Khanna in my area) that refuses corporate donations would not be eligible to be endorsed. There is nothing in the language of the proposal itself to prohibit endorsing multiple candidates for office (even though many of those advocating for it are seemingly against that idea), or mandating a preference for Green candidates over others. Given the party's history of factionalism, I can total see a scenario in which the faction dominant at the time winds endorsing a P&F or NPP candidate over a genuine Green in disfavor with them, or the party winds up in a knock down dragged out fight over endorsement a la Nader 2004. That said, this is not likely to be a frequent scenario, although I do agree that the net effect is to somewhat decrease the incentive to remain a Green when running for higher office instead of registering NPP. This effect increases as the value of an endorsement from the Green Party increases. So, yes, we're effectively slitting our own throats at some level here... I honestly don't see how we gain anything of substance via alliance with the P&F party, with whom we actually compete for voter registrations and donations, and which is even less organized and less resourceful than we are. But, maybe there is some benefit... a NPP candidate advertising our endorsement might be free publicity. But... given that local county parties have and will continue to endorse non-Greens on a regular basis, and the limited number of potential outside endorsements, and the limited benefit this provides to any candidate, and the fact that this requires a vote and that we can expect limited financial and other resources to be prioritized to races in which actual Greens are running... and that we can reverse the policy at will if it winds up being counterproductive. Given all that, this is more symbolic than substantive, and that some people strongly feel that there is value of a statement of solidarity between non-corporate parties (even if the other party is statist, and thus ideologically opposed to core Green principles), I'm willing to stand aside. Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 12:05 PM timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com> wrote:
Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined?
“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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I share your concern regarding factionalism and the possibility that we may endorse non-Greens over Greens. My earlier comments expressing my concern about divisiveness were made because I worry that personality conflicts are far more responsible for the dissension within the Green Party than are ideological differences between individuals/candidates. So my feelings are mixed on this issue. I believe alliances are vital, both with other parties like P&F and other leftist groups like Socialist Alternative, etc., and I also think we need a policy that minimizes internal conflict, builds solidarity within our party, and incentivizes running as a Green. P&F only endorses Greens when it does not have a P&F candidate running in the same race; making this a mandate is one way to at least settle the question of whether or not we might endorse non-Greens over Greens. On 3/26/2018 2:25 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote: As I understand it, so long as the Democratic Party itself receives "corporate" funding, even a "good Democrat" (Bernie Sanders, for example, or Congressperson Ro Khanna in my area) that refuses corporate donations would not be eligible to be endorsed. There is nothing in the language of the proposal itself to prohibit endorsing multiple candidates for office (even though many of those advocating for it are seemingly against that idea), or mandating a preference for Green candidates over others. Given the party's history of factionalism, I can total see a scenario in which the faction dominant at the time winds endorsing a P&F or NPP candidate over a genuine Green in disfavor with them, or the party winds up in a knock down dragged out fight over endorsement a la Nader 2004. That said, this is not likely to be a frequent scenario, although I do agree that the net effect is to somewhat decrease the incentive to remain a Green when running for higher office instead of registering NPP. This effect increases as the value of an endorsement from the Green Party increases. So, yes, we're effectively slitting our own throats at some level here... I honestly don't see how we gain anything of substance via alliance with the P&F party, with whom we actually compete for voter registrations and donations, and which is even less organized and less resourceful than we are. But, maybe there is some benefit... a NPP candidate advertising our endorsement might be free publicity. But... given that local county parties have and will continue to endorse non-Greens on a regular basis, and the limited number of potential outside endorsements, and the limited benefit this provides to any candidate, and the fact that this requires a vote and that we can expect limited financial and other resources to be prioritized to races in which actual Greens are running... and that we can reverse the policy at will if it winds up being counterproductive. Given all that, this is more symbolic than substantive, and that some people strongly feel that there is value of a statement of solidarity between non-corporate parties (even if the other party is statist, and thus ideologically opposed to core Green principles), I'm willing to stand aside. Thomas Leavitt On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 12:05 PM timeka drew <timekadrew@gmail.com<mailto:timekadrew@gmail.com>> wrote: Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for endorsement be determined? “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.”
On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote:
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.
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cb5e7da64695a463dddf008d593877798%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636577132394161330&sdata=ajm41p6VhAYwug1XDobmswaMONBF10aMxavxV1OxMiA%3D&reserved=0>
Question if candidate was former Green but running DS but wants to remain in the green party after the electionCan we still endorse with the above provisions in the resolutionRandy Sacramento Get organized with Yahoo Mail On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Eric Brooks<brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: <!--#yiv7117110802 _filtered #yiv7117110802 {font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7117110802 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv7117110802 #yiv7117110802 p.yiv7117110802MsoNormal, #yiv7117110802 li.yiv7117110802MsoNormal, #yiv7117110802 div.yiv7117110802MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;}#yiv7117110802 a:link, #yiv7117110802 span.yiv7117110802MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7117110802 a:visited, #yiv7117110802 span.yiv7117110802MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7117110802 span.yiv7117110802EmailStyle17 {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:#1F497D;}#yiv7117110802 .yiv7117110802MsoChpDefault {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;} _filtered #yiv7117110802 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7117110802 div.yiv7117110802WordSection1 {}--> Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org]On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time Background The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: 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
My take on that is that we should go by what their registered status is during the SGA endorsement vote. So if they are No Party Preference (previously ‘Decline to State’) we should vote on whether to endorse them in the non-Green category. Eric Brooks From: Randy Hicks [mailto:rhfactor_98@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 6:49 PM To: GPCA-SGA-Vote discussion <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>; Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com>; GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office Question if candidate was former Green but running DS but wants to remain in the green party after the election Can we still endorse with the above provisions in the resolution Randy Sacramento Get organized with Yahoo Mail<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=MailPP_sig_Dec17&af_sub1=E-mail&af_sub2=YGrowth&af_sub3=US_Email_MailPP_Sig_V5> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi all, In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect. Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes. I hope this clears up any confusion. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of GPCA Votes Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM To: gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<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
Where does anyone find time to review, assess, and/or read the plethora of emails with the novels of info upon them? My god, we really need to start simplifying a bit more... James Young SGA O.C. On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
After digging through literally hundreds of emails last night & this morning, I finally found one with a link to the actual voting page. I’ll post here & whenever a discussion item pops up. Thanks new & improved SGA Admins... /s -N https://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_general_info On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:31 PM 1 <jbrjaw1@gmail.com> wrote:
Where does anyone find time to review, assess, and/or read the plethora of emails with the novels of info upon them? My god, we really need to start simplifying a bit more...
James Young SGA O.C.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
James Young, I'm not sure. I don't have a party identity. I am a Green if people ask. I do some stuff on behalf of the Green Party. I do a lot of political work outside the party structure. As do most of us. Accordingly, I think it is appropriate to use an endorsement as a tool in our electoral toolbox. I see so much hyperbole against this proposal as if we cease to exist if we endorse outside our juvenile tribal label. And it is all hyperbole. Because this proposal creates the ability to endorse individuals. It is not an obligation to endorse and it will still require a vote of the assembly. Meaning it isn't a blank check. But as of right now we can't even ENTERTAIN the idea of endorsing someone like Gayle. So this proposal ends the prohibition of out of party endorsements and lets us consider qualified candidate whose values align with ours. It is a simple measure that allows us the opportinity, should great nonGreen candidates run, to build coalitions, build mutual trust and network so we can build a people's movement and end the two party dictatorship, end the wars and police state, etc. It's a very simple proposal, Nicole. I suspect intraparty conflict and perceptions of dishonesty or underhandedness inform your insistence that this proposal is a plot to destroy the party. Maybe not. You know I'm always up for a chat. Steve On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 1:31 PM 1 <jbrjaw1@gmail.com> wrote:
Where does anyone find time to review, assess, and/or read the plethora of emails with the novels of info upon them? My god, we really need to start simplifying a bit more...
James Young SGA O.C.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
Steven and other Greens, I want to make one thing crystal clear because I have seen this theme On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:29 PM Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
James Young, I'm not sure. I don't have a party identity. I am a Green if people ask. I do some stuff on behalf of the Green Party. I do a lot of political work outside the party structure. As do most of us. Accordingly, I think it is appropriate to use an endorsement as a tool in our electoral toolbox. I see so much hyperbole against this proposal as if we cease to exist if we endorse outside our juvenile tribal label. And it is all hyperbole. Because this proposal creates the ability to endorse individuals. It is not an obligation to endorse and it will still require a vote of the assembly. Meaning it isn't a blank check. But as of right now we can't even ENTERTAIN the idea of endorsing someone like Gayle. So this proposal ends the prohibition of out of party endorsements and lets us consider qualified candidate whose values align with ours. It is a simple measure that allows us the opportinity, should great nonGreen candidates run, to build coalitions, build mutual trust and network so we can build a people's movement and end the two party dictatorship, end the wars and police state, etc. It's a very simple proposal, Nicole. I suspect intraparty conflict and perceptions of dishonesty or underhandedness inform your insistence that this proposal is a plot to destroy the party. Maybe not. You know I'm always up for a chat. Steve
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 1:31 PM 1 <jbrjaw1@gmail.com> wrote:
Where does anyone find time to review, assess, and/or read the plethora of emails with the novels of info upon them? My god, we really need to start simplifying a bit more...
James Young SGA O.C.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
FYI: Congress is about making deals, so I we endorse a Justice Dem, after we've already missed the mark, then if that JD signs a commitment in blood with their soul saying they will do everything within their power to open the door as far as possible to allow 3rd Party's to come in, and Overturn Citizens Untied along with Mcutcheon v. FEC, then they should be worthy, or we just going to exile ourselves at every turn? On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
James Young, I'm not sure. I don't have a party identity. I am a Green if people ask. I do some stuff on behalf of the Green Party. I do a lot of political work outside the party structure. As do most of us. Accordingly, I think it is appropriate to use an endorsement as a tool in our electoral toolbox. I see so much hyperbole against this proposal as if we cease to exist if we endorse outside our juvenile tribal label. And it is all hyperbole. Because this proposal creates the ability to endorse individuals. It is not an obligation to endorse and it will still require a vote of the assembly. Meaning it isn't a blank check. But as of right now we can't even ENTERTAIN the idea of endorsing someone like Gayle. So this proposal ends the prohibition of out of party endorsements and lets us consider qualified candidate whose values align with ours. It is a simple measure that allows us the opportinity, should great nonGreen candidates run, to build coalitions, build mutual trust and network so we can build a people's movement and end the two party dictatorship, end the wars and police state, etc. It's a very simple proposal, Nicole. I suspect intraparty conflict and perceptions of dishonesty or underhandedness inform your insistence that this proposal is a plot to destroy the party. Maybe not. You know I'm always up for a chat. Steve
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 1:31 PM 1 <jbrjaw1@gmail.com> wrote:
Where does anyone find time to review, assess, and/or read the plethora of emails with the novels of info upon them? My god, we really need to start simplifying a bit more...
James Young SGA O.C.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
No one is proposing that we endorse a "Justice Democrat", or a Libertarian. That is not on the table. This proposal specifically excludes that possibility. However, individual county parties are free to endorse, or not, as they see fit, using whatever process they define. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:32 PM, 1 <jbrjaw1@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI: Congress is about making deals, so I we endorse a Justice Dem, after we've already missed the mark, then if that JD signs a commitment in blood with their soul saying they will do everything within their power to open the door as far as possible to allow 3rd Party's to come in, and Overturn Citizens Untied along with Mcutcheon v. FEC, then they should be worthy, or we just going to exile ourselves at every turn?
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Steve Breedlove <srbreedlove@gmail.com> wrote:
James Young, I'm not sure. I don't have a party identity. I am a Green if people ask. I do some stuff on behalf of the Green Party. I do a lot of political work outside the party structure. As do most of us. Accordingly, I think it is appropriate to use an endorsement as a tool in our electoral toolbox. I see so much hyperbole against this proposal as if we cease to exist if we endorse outside our juvenile tribal label. And it is all hyperbole. Because this proposal creates the ability to endorse individuals. It is not an obligation to endorse and it will still require a vote of the assembly. Meaning it isn't a blank check. But as of right now we can't even ENTERTAIN the idea of endorsing someone like Gayle. So this proposal ends the prohibition of out of party endorsements and lets us consider qualified candidate whose values align with ours. It is a simple measure that allows us the opportinity, should great nonGreen candidates run, to build coalitions, build mutual trust and network so we can build a people's movement and end the two party dictatorship, end the wars and police state, etc. It's a very simple proposal, Nicole. I suspect intraparty conflict and perceptions of dishonesty or underhandedness inform your insistence that this proposal is a plot to destroy the party. Maybe not. You know I'm always up for a chat. Steve
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 1:31 PM 1 <jbrjaw1@gmail.com> wrote:
Where does anyone find time to review, assess, and/or read the plethora of emails with the novels of info upon them? My god, we really need to start simplifying a bit more...
James Young SGA O.C.
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
In response to Michael Feinstein’s previous emails stating the opinion that items 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, and 152 are not correctly on our SGA ballot, Michael’s statements are incorrect.
Because Item 155 (see below) would enable us to endorse non-Green candidates for statewide office, as long as they do not take corporate donations and are supportive to the Green Party’s values and platform, items 144 through 152 all are properly on our SGA ballot and votes for those candidates will be counted if item 155 passes.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *GPCA Votes *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:44 PM *To:* gpca-votes@sfgreens.org *Subject:* [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
participants (24)
-
1 -
Adam Siegel -
Ann Menasche -
Bob Marsh -
C. A. B. -
Chris -
Eric Brooks -
Erik -
Genevieve Marcus -
Gloria Purcell -
Jane Jarlsberg -
Jason Kishineff -
Jeff Lebow -
Jesse Townley -
June Brashares -
Laura Wells -
Linda Piera-Avila -
lindap_a＠verizon.net
-
Nicole Castor -
Randy Hicks -
Steve Breedlove -
Thomas Leavitt -
timeka drew -
Victoria Ashley