Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State
*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 #147 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State * Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
This is a thread for Secretary of State, Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State. In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent. With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla. If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece. Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest. My three cents, Chris Carlson Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
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 absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates. Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc.... Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_ vote_statewide_races
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
Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks! Go Greens! Mimi Newton Marin Greens On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote:
If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net
wrote:
I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
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
I dont understand why you wouldnt want to endorse someone on the primary... the party is creating political suicide by not having an endorsed candidate. This coversation makes no sense. We need one candidate to get behind or its pointless. We need to win the primary not just run candidates all over the place. At this juncture timing is off and we need to do this earlier in the future elections. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks!
Go Greens!
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote:
If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell < gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
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
-- Anthony J. Krzywicki, *Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council* www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party *It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. * -Dali Lama
Greens, Re: June, "I have good news for you. This process does allow SGA voters the option to endorse *every* Green statewide candidate that qualifies for the CA June Primary Ballot." This is a better option than before, and I, for one, appreciate the effort. However, the process is still being implimented too late, and will still reflect the will of a few select GPCA members over the general population of CA Greens. There is still no standard measure set to determine to SGA voters who the "best" candidate(s) is/are. Without a standard, we are basing these decisions on sentiment, and the successful campaigning of the SGA alone, which undermines our Key Values of Grassroots Democracy and Decentralization (by highlighting the result of a campaign to a centralized group of voters). It's too late to proceed with this process in a democratic way which stays true to our TKV's and I will vote NO on the proposal for endorsement & "endorse all" for the candidates portion, so thank you for adding that option and for listening to Chris Carlson's concerns on this. -N On Feb 17, 2018 10:17 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
I dont understand why you wouldnt want to endorse someone on the primary... the party is creating political suicide by not having an endorsed candidate. This coversation makes no sense. We need one candidate to get behind or its pointless. We need to win the primary not just run candidates all over the place. At this juncture timing is off and we need to do this earlier in the future elections.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks!
Go Greens!
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote:
If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell < gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_ vote_statewide_races
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
-- Anthony J. Krzywicki,
*Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council* www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
*It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. * -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
The SGA voting period is “03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018.” And the primary is on June 5, 2018. And, per June’s earlier message, we can choose to endorse 1 or more candidates or no candidates. It’s our call. Mimi Newton Marin Greens On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:17 AM Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
I dont understand why you wouldnt want to endorse someone on the primary... the party is creating political suicide by not having an endorsed candidate. This coversation makes no sense. We need one candidate to get behind or its pointless. We need to win the primary not just run candidates all over the place. At this juncture timing is off and we need to do this earlier in the future elections.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks!
Go Greens!
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote:
If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell < gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
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
-- Anthony J. Krzywicki,
*Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party CaliforniaCo-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council* www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
*It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. * -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Thank you all for a lively discussion. I am very much in favor of reinstating the GPCA endorsement process and will be voting YES on endorsements for all proposals being discussed. I encourage all interested in growing GPCA to consider the clear disadvantages in not putting support and endorsement behind ONE candidate for each office (ideally a slate of candidates) to break the 2% threshold. Otherwise the math simply doesn’t add up in our favor. In this case 1% + 1% + 1% isn’t better than 2%! I fully agree with Wanda about representing our local Greens. The notion that only ‘a select few’ make a decision on endorsement is false unless an SGA delegate intentionally makes it their exclusive decision. As SGA delegates, it is our responsibility to bring discussions on pending SGA votes to our county meetings for discussion and input. This is what we do in Santa Clara, and I encourage all SGAs to do the same = decentralization. The current timelines in no way impede the efforts of any candidates (endorsed or not) in continuing their campaign and efforts in growing awareness about GPCA. As mentioned before, candidates are obviously not removed from the ballot due to our endorsement. Greens are free to vote for the candidate they believe best represents our values and best serves the future of GPCA. Nor do these timelines hinder us as SGA to make informed decisions, especially using the thoughtful and flexible voting system put in place for the endorsement process - thank you June for clarifying. I want to express my appreciation for the efforts many have put forth in making this happen for 2018 elections. I hope we can continue to improve the process, get started a bit earlier and most importantly, coordinate and organize running a slate in future elections. Peace, Nassim Nouri County Council Green Party of Santa Clara County
On Feb 17, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
The SGA voting period is “03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018.” And the primary is on June 5, 2018. And, per June’s earlier message, we can choose to endorse 1 or more candidates or no candidates. It’s our call.
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:17 AM Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com <mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: I dont understand why you wouldnt want to endorse someone on the primary... the party is creating political suicide by not having an endorsed candidate. This coversation makes no sense. We need one candidate to get behind or its pointless. We need to win the primary not just run candidates all over the place. At this juncture timing is off and we need to do this earlier in the future elections.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com <mailto:mimi.newton@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks!
Go Greens!
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com <mailto:june.brashares@gmail.com>> wrote: If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net <mailto:gloria@extragalactic.net>> wrote: I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org <mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com <mailto:gpca.votes@gmail.com>> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races <http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races>
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 <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes>
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes> -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com <http://www.venturacountygreenparty.com/> greenpartyvc@gmail.com <mailto:greenpartyvc@gmail.com> instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Anthony, this is what the Democrats did with Hillary and Bernie. Gloria
On Feb 17, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
I dont understand why you wouldnt want to endorse someone on the primary... the party is creating political suicide by not having an endorsed candidate. This coversation makes no sense. We need one candidate to get behind or its pointless. We need to win the primary not just run candidates all over the place. At this juncture timing is off and we need to do this earlier in the future elections.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks!
Go Greens!
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote: If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
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 -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
No, it really isn't. Hillary had appointed superdelegates override the majority vote and had elections tampered with all over the state. The DNC lawsuit confirms this. What we are proposing is to endorse candidates. Your comment is like saying Oliver Twist, asking for another bowl of soup, was like Veruca Salt demanding a golden ticket. On Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 13:35 Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
Anthony, this is what the Democrats did with Hillary and Bernie. Gloria
On Feb 17, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
I dont understand why you wouldnt want to endorse someone on the primary... the party is creating political suicide by not having an endorsed candidate. This coversation makes no sense. We need one candidate to get behind or its pointless. We need to win the primary not just run candidates all over the place. At this juncture timing is off and we need to do this earlier in the future elections.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks!
Go Greens!
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote: If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell < gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
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 -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
LOL, Sadie! What I really mean is that it is divisive in a way that will hurt the Party similar to the favoritism of that election, not as an exact parallel. Gloria
On Feb 18, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
No, it really isn't. Hillary had appointed superdelegates override the majority vote and had elections tampered with all over the state. The DNC lawsuit confirms this. What we are proposing is to endorse candidates. Your comment is like saying Oliver Twist, asking for another bowl of soup, was like Veruca Salt demanding a golden ticket.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 13:35 Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: Anthony, this is what the Democrats did with Hillary and Bernie. Gloria
On Feb 17, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
I dont understand why you wouldnt want to endorse someone on the primary... the party is creating political suicide by not having an endorsed candidate. This coversation makes no sense. We need one candidate to get behind or its pointless. We need to win the primary not just run candidates all over the place. At this juncture timing is off and we need to do this earlier in the future elections.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks!
Go Greens!
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote: If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
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 -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/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
It isn’t decisive. It’s common sense. Parties have Primaries. Ours were taken from us. That is what hurts our party. This endorsement is the first step to Re empowering our party and passing this now will allow us to not only endorse our candidates but endorse other Eco-Socialist parties like Peace and Freedom who are running for offices we are not. There is no reason not to have an endorsement process and if we go into June without a recommended slate of candidates that we have endorsed we will look like fools. Next election cycle we will do it much earlier. For now we lust need to get it passed so we have the process. On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 6:57 PM Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
LOL, Sadie! What I really mean is that it is divisive in a way that will hurt the Party similar to the favoritism of that election, not as an exact parallel. Gloria
On Feb 18, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
No, it really isn't. Hillary had appointed superdelegates override the majority vote and had elections tampered with all over the state. The DNC lawsuit confirms this. What we are proposing is to endorse candidates. Your comment is like saying Oliver Twist, asking for another bowl of soup, was like Veruca Salt demanding a golden ticket.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 13:35 Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: Anthony, this is what the Democrats did with Hillary and Bernie. Gloria
On Feb 17, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
I dont understand why you wouldnt want to endorse someone on the primary... the party is creating political suicide by not having an endorsed candidate. This coversation makes no sense. We need one candidate to get behind or its pointless. We need to win the primary not just run candidates all over the place. At this juncture timing is off and we need to do this earlier in the future elections.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks!
Go Greens!
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares < june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote: If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell < gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
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 -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/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
No party's in California have a primary under top two. The power to pick who voters can vote for is centralization of power. After asking some national greens, I'm even further convinced that this process is undemocratic. Should the party decide to endorse, it should be through a process that includes all voters, and is transparent. This process is 1) rushed at the last minute, 2) not transparent 3) has a small group deciding who voters get to vote on 4) too much like how Dems select their candidates, 5) undemocratic, 6) establishes a party elite who tells voters what to think. Do you not think our Voters are smart enough to pick for themselves? On Feb 19, 2018 7:12 PM, "Erik" <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
It isn’t decisive. It’s common sense. Parties have Primaries. Ours were taken from us. That is what hurts our party. This endorsement is the first step to Re empowering our party and passing this now will allow us to not only endorse our candidates but endorse other Eco-Socialist parties like Peace and Freedom who are running for offices we are not. There is no reason not to have an endorsement process and if we go into June without a recommended slate of candidates that we have endorsed we will look like fools. Next election cycle we will do it much earlier. For now we lust need to get it passed so we have the process.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 6:57 PM Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
LOL, Sadie! What I really mean is that it is divisive in a way that will hurt the Party similar to the favoritism of that election, not as an exact parallel. Gloria
On Feb 18, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
No, it really isn't. Hillary had appointed superdelegates override the majority vote and had elections tampered with all over the state. The DNC lawsuit confirms this. What we are proposing is to endorse candidates. Your comment is like saying Oliver Twist, asking for another bowl of soup, was like Veruca Salt demanding a golden ticket.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018, 13:35 Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: Anthony, this is what the Democrats did with Hillary and Bernie. Gloria
On Feb 17, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
I dont understand why you wouldnt want to endorse someone on the primary... the party is creating political suicide by not having an endorsed candidate. This coversation makes no sense. We need one candidate to get behind or its pointless. We need to win the primary not just run candidates all over the place. At this juncture timing is off and we need to do this earlier in the future elections.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:59 AM Mimi Newton <mimi.newton@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks June! This is very helpful information and may serve to defuse some of the arguments on a number of “endorsement” related SGA Voting threads - it also means that we, as Greens, can decide for ourselves where we might want to endorse more than one candidate for an election or even endorse just one candidate where more than one is running (as in your Neo-Nazi Green example below). Lotsa choice here, folks!
Go Greens!
Mimi Newton Marin Greens
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:27 AM June Brashares < june.brashares@gmail.com> wrote: If several racist nazis somehow decided to run as Greens, we could use this process to withhold endorsements, or even "Oppose" those candidates.
Giving a candidate an endorsement allows the GPCA to promote endorsed candidates on the website etc....
Since any citizen can go and register and run as a Green whether or not they agree with the Green 10 key values, it's good there's a way to identify all the candidates that should be promoted by the GPCA.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Gloria Purcell < gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: I absolutely agree with Chris. Selecting one is a horrible idea. Divisive, political suicide. We can use an endorsement as an acknowledgment of both candidates’ legitimacy in the eyes of the Party, if people want to go that way. That way if we are horrified by a candidate, we can withhold an endorsement to indicate that. I personally prefer a Bylaw prohibiting endorsements of candidates for any Primary. Simple. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_ vote_statewide_races
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 -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/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
Hi Chris, I have good news for you. This process does allow SGA voters the option to endorse *every* Green statewide candidate that qualifies for the CA June Primary Ballot. The SGA voters will have the option to vote to "Endorse", or "Oppose" or "No Position" on every one of the individual qualified candidates. SGA voters can choose "Endorse" for every qualified candidate they feel well represents Green values. Yes, that means you can vote "endorse" for more than one candidate for a particular office if you choose. Or if a SGA voter wants to vote to "endorse" on only one of the candidates, the voter can do that and vote "No Position" or "Oppose" on the others. Or any such combination. A candidate will need to receive the 2/3rd threshold of support from the SGA voters to obtain the "Endorsed by GPCA" badge of honor. One candidate achieving that level of support to be endorsed does not prevent another candidate for that same office from also achieving that level of approval for endorsement. The candidate who doesn't get that 2/3rds level of support cannot blame it on being knocked out by another candidate -- it's up to each candidate to garner at least 2/3rds of the SGA voters positively liking that candidate regardless of what is thought of the other candidates for that office. Sorry this wasn't made clear earlier. The goal for the candidates in this SGA endorsement process is really to get 2/3rds of the SGA to like them. I think those smiles you mentioned are good advice for candidates here. I think negative campaigning will not likely help a candidate get to 2/3rds support. June On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State * Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_ vote_statewide_races
*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
Thank you June for that easy to follow clarification. So it appears the situation is as follows: the SGA representatives exist to vote the will of their County Councils on the endorsement question – or any other question put before them – is that correct? If it is – and they are not just random Greens put in a position to influence the party’s activities for reasons other than county level authorization of their representation – and although I am an SGA, yet find the entire SGA construct tedious, cumbersome and unnecessary – as GA’s for each county ought just to be able to participate in an online forum from time to time to gain the representative consensus to any question that would otherwise be put before all GA’s face to face, easily and without all this rigamarole – but I digress. If the above understanding, in the first line of this email, is correct – then the SGAs vote the will of their councils on this or any other question – yes? Wanda From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:03 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Hi Chris, I have good news for you. This process does allow SGA voters the option to endorse every Green statewide candidate that qualifies for the CA June Primary Ballot. The SGA voters will have the option to vote to "Endorse", or "Oppose" or "No Position" on every one of the individual qualified candidates. SGA voters can choose "Endorse" for every qualified candidate they feel well represents Green values. Yes, that means you can vote "endorse" for more than one candidate for a particular office if you choose. Or if a SGA voter wants to vote to "endorse" on only one of the candidates, the voter can do that and vote "No Position" or "Oppose" on the others. Or any such combination. A candidate will need to receive the 2/3rd threshold of support from the SGA voters to obtain the "Endorsed by GPCA" badge of honor. One candidate achieving that level of support to be endorsed does not prevent another candidate for that same office from also achieving that level of approval for endorsement. The candidate who doesn't get that 2/3rds level of support cannot blame it on being knocked out by another candidate -- it's up to each candidate to garner at least 2/3rds of the SGA voters positively liking that candidate regardless of what is thought of the other candidates for that office. Sorry this wasn't made clear earlier. The goal for the candidates in this SGA endorsement process is really to get 2/3rds of the SGA to like them. I think those smiles you mentioned are good advice for candidates here. I think negative campaigning will not likely help a candidate get to 2/3rds support. June On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote: This is a thread for Secretary of State, Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State. In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent. With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla. If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece. Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest. My three cents, Chris Carlson Sent from my iPhone On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races 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
Wanda Jean what you say is interesting. The quorum for decision making at the last GA was 153 delegates. The SGA has 156 delegates. So there isn't much difference. The differences that DO exist are that GA delegates are elected by county and SGA delegates are appointed. Also, GA delegates tend to be less likely to travel to a remote meeting. They may not be more inclined to attend digital meetings. But maybe they would attend limited infrequent meetings like endorsements.... Hoping to get the views of 100,000 Greens is unrealistic. Many don't vote, don't follow the issues, and just registered because someone asked them to. That's why work has always been done by the GA. And as work increased the SGA seemed like a good way to help. Genevieve Marcus On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you June for that easy to follow clarification.
So it appears the situation is as follows: the SGA representatives exist to vote the will of their County Councils on the endorsement question – or any other question put before them – is that correct?
If it is – and they are not just random Greens put in a position to influence the party’s activities for reasons other than county level authorization of their representation – and although I am an SGA, yet find the entire SGA construct tedious, cumbersome and unnecessary – as GA’s for each county ought just to be able to participate in an online forum from time to time to gain the representative consensus to any question that would otherwise be put before all GA’s face to face, easily and without all this rigamarole – but I digress.
If the above understanding, in the first line of this email, is correct – then the SGAs vote the will of their councils on this or any other question – yes?
Wanda
*From: *gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> *Reply-To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Date: *Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:03 AM *To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject: *Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State
Hi Chris,
I have good news for you. This process does allow SGA voters the option to endorse *every* Green statewide candidate that qualifies for the CA June Primary Ballot.
The SGA voters will have the option to vote to "Endorse", or "Oppose" or "No Position" on every one of the individual qualified candidates. SGA voters can choose "Endorse" for every qualified candidate they feel well represents Green values. Yes, that means you can vote "endorse" for more than one candidate for a particular office if you choose. Or if a SGA voter wants to vote to "endorse" on only one of the candidates, the voter can do that and vote "No Position" or "Oppose" on the others. Or any such combination.
A candidate will need to receive the 2/3rd threshold of support from the SGA voters to obtain the "Endorsed by GPCA" badge of honor. One candidate achieving that level of support to be endorsed does not prevent another candidate for that same office from also achieving that level of approval for endorsement. The candidate who doesn't get that 2/3rds level of support cannot blame it on being knocked out by another candidate -- it's up to each candidate to garner at least 2/3rds of the SGA voters positively liking that candidate regardless of what is thought of the other candidates for that office.
Sorry this wasn't made clear earlier.
The goal for the candidates in this SGA endorsement process is really to get 2/3rds of the SGA to like them. I think those smiles you mentioned are good advice for candidates here. I think negative campaigning will not likely help a candidate get to 2/3rds support.
June
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents,
Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to **gpca-votes@sfgreens.org* <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147
Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State *
Number of Seats: 1
Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck
Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018
Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_ vote_statewide_races
*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
-- *"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 *
Hi Genevieve, Thank you for your thoughtful response. A few thoughts back… citing a minimum number (quorum) necessary for decision making at the GA … is different that appointing a given number SGA folks and leaving other GA representatives without a direct voice. As the numbers are similar – it seems to me that an additional level of bureaucracy that the SGA is - is unnecessary. Why not just keep it simple? If you are a GA you vote on topics that GA’s vote upon – and that’s it. The vote can occur face to face or online and quorum getting looks pretty doable as you mentioned the numbers are almost the same. I am not sure about how reasonable it is to state that GA delegates may not be inclined to attend digital meetings – in our council we’ve held digital meetings from time to time as needed and always had very strong attendance, and effective, simple and agenda driven meetings resulting in good decision making. Digital meetings are the way most people regularly do business these days. I agree that it would be unrealistic to get the input of 100,00 Greens … I don’t recall where any of my statements suggested that as an option – but if it somehow did – it wasn’t intended and I agree with your statement, at least in the present way that things are done at the GPCA. I understand that it appears that at the time the SGA may have been created – it was designed as a way to help. How long ago was that? Maybe what we are facing is just the need for the party and its mechanisms to evolve from the best practices of the 1990’s into what is the most efficient and most inviting and participatory in 2018 ☺ . That would be my hope. Wanda From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 4:00 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Wanda Jean what you say is interesting. The quorum for decision making at the last GA was 153 delegates. The SGA has 156 delegates. So there isn't much difference. The differences that DO exist are that GA delegates are elected by county and SGA delegates are appointed. Also, GA delegates tend to be less likely to travel to a remote meeting. They may not be more inclined to attend digital meetings. But maybe they would attend limited infrequent meetings like endorsements.... Hoping to get the views of 100,000 Greens is unrealistic. Many don't vote, don't follow the issues, and just registered because someone asked them to. That's why work has always been done by the GA. And as work increased the SGA seemed like a good way to help. Genevieve Marcus On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you June for that easy to follow clarification. So it appears the situation is as follows: the SGA representatives exist to vote the will of their County Councils on the endorsement question – or any other question put before them – is that correct? If it is – and they are not just random Greens put in a position to influence the party’s activities for reasons other than county level authorization of their representation – and although I am an SGA, yet find the entire SGA construct tedious, cumbersome and unnecessary – as GA’s for each county ought just to be able to participate in an online forum from time to time to gain the representative consensus to any question that would otherwise be put before all GA’s face to face, easily and without all this rigamarole – but I digress. If the above understanding, in the first line of this email, is correct – then the SGAs vote the will of their councils on this or any other question – yes? Wanda From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:03 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Hi Chris, I have good news for you. This process does allow SGA voters the option to endorse every Green statewide candidate that qualifies for the CA June Primary Ballot. The SGA voters will have the option to vote to "Endorse", or "Oppose" or "No Position" on every one of the individual qualified candidates. SGA voters can choose "Endorse" for every qualified candidate they feel well represents Green values. Yes, that means you can vote "endorse" for more than one candidate for a particular office if you choose. Or if a SGA voter wants to vote to "endorse" on only one of the candidates, the voter can do that and vote "No Position" or "Oppose" on the others. Or any such combination. A candidate will need to receive the 2/3rd threshold of support from the SGA voters to obtain the "Endorsed by GPCA" badge of honor. One candidate achieving that level of support to be endorsed does not prevent another candidate for that same office from also achieving that level of approval for endorsement. The candidate who doesn't get that 2/3rds level of support cannot blame it on being knocked out by another candidate -- it's up to each candidate to garner at least 2/3rds of the SGA voters positively liking that candidate regardless of what is thought of the other candidates for that office. Sorry this wasn't made clear earlier. The goal for the candidates in this SGA endorsement process is really to get 2/3rds of the SGA to like them. I think those smiles you mentioned are good advice for candidates here. I think negative campaigning will not likely help a candidate get to 2/3rds support. June On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote: This is a thread for Secretary of State, Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State. In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent. With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla. If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece. Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest. My three cents, Chris Carlson Sent from my iPhone On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot. Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races 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 -- "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
Not exactly the same thing. They are a powerful wealthy party that had a primary which they rigged in favor Hillary. We are a tiny weak Party and our primary has been taken from us with Top Two, through no fault of our own, weakening us even further. We need to work to get Top Two repealed - all Counties should be getting on board to gather signatures for the ballot initiative already underway. But in the meanwhile we should find a mechanism for the Party (and outside forces as well such as P&F Party and NPP) to unite behind a common slate against the two establishment Party candidates, if we hope to get anywhere. Ann Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 18, 2018, at 12:57 PM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Genevieve,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
A few thoughts back… citing a minimum number (quorum) necessary for decision making at the GA … is different that appointing a given number SGA folks and leaving other GA representatives without a direct voice. As the numbers are similar – it seems to me that an additional level of bureaucracy that the SGA is - is unnecessary.
Why not just keep it simple? If you are a GA you vote on topics that GA’s vote upon – and that’s it. The vote can occur face to face or online and quorum getting looks pretty doable as you mentioned the numbers are almost the same.
I am not sure about how reasonable it is to state that GA delegates may not be inclined to attend digital meetings – in our council we’ve held digital meetings from time to time as needed and always had very strong attendance, and effective, simple and agenda driven meetings resulting in good decision making. Digital meetings are the way most people regularly do business these days.
I agree that it would be unrealistic to get the input of 100,00 Greens … I don’t recall where any of my statements suggested that as an option – but if it somehow did – it wasn’t intended and I agree with your statement, at least in the present way that things are done at the GPCA.
I understand that it appears that at the time the SGA may have been created – it was designed as a way to help. How long ago was that?
Maybe what we are facing is just the need for the party and its mechanisms to evolve from the best practices of the 1990’s into what is the most efficient and most inviting and participatory in 2018 ☺ .
That would be my hope.
Wanda
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 4:00 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State
Wanda Jean what you say is interesting. The quorum for decision making at the last GA was 153 delegates. The SGA has 156 delegates. So there isn't much difference. The differences that DO exist are that GA delegates are elected by county and SGA delegates are appointed. Also, GA delegates tend to be less likely to travel to a remote meeting. They may not be more inclined to attend digital meetings. But maybe they would attend limited infrequent meetings like endorsements....
Hoping to get the views of 100,000 Greens is unrealistic. Many don't vote, don't follow the issues, and just registered because someone asked them to. That's why work has always been done by the GA. And as work increased the SGA seemed like a good way to help.
Genevieve Marcus
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you June for that easy to follow clarification.
So it appears the situation is as follows: the SGA representatives exist to vote the will of their County Councils on the endorsement question – or any other question put before them – is that correct?
If it is – and they are not just random Greens put in a position to influence the party’s activities for reasons other than county level authorization of their representation – and although I am an SGA, yet find the entire SGA construct tedious, cumbersome and unnecessary – as GA’s for each county ought just to be able to participate in an online forum from time to time to gain the representative consensus to any question that would otherwise be put before all GA’s face to face, easily and without all this rigamarole – but I digress.
If the above understanding, in the first line of this email, is correct – then the SGAs vote the will of their councils on this or any other question – yes?
Wanda
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of June Brashares <june.brashares@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:03 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 147: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State
Hi Chris,
I have good news for you. This process does allow SGA voters the option to endorse every Green statewide candidate that qualifies for the CA June Primary Ballot.
The SGA voters will have the option to vote to "Endorse", or "Oppose" or "No Position" on every one of the individual qualified candidates. SGA voters can choose "Endorse" for every qualified candidate they feel well represents Green values. Yes, that means you can vote "endorse" for more than one candidate for a particular office if you choose. Or if a SGA voter wants to vote to "endorse" on only one of the candidates, the voter can do that and vote "No Position" or "Oppose" on the others. Or any such combination.
A candidate will need to receive the 2/3rd threshold of support from the SGA voters to obtain the "Endorsed by GPCA" badge of honor. One candidate achieving that level of support to be endorsed does not prevent another candidate for that same office from also achieving that level of approval for endorsement. The candidate who doesn't get that 2/3rds level of support cannot blame it on being knocked out by another candidate -- it's up to each candidate to garner at least 2/3rds of the SGA voters positively liking that candidate regardless of what is thought of the other candidates for that office.
Sorry this wasn't made clear earlier.
The goal for the candidates in this SGA endorsement process is really to get 2/3rds of the SGA to like them. I think those smiles you mentioned are good advice for candidates here. I think negative campaigning will not likely help a candidate get to 2/3rds support.
June
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote: This is a thread for Secretary of State,
Having personally collected and submitted signatures for both candidates in Sacramento, I advise endorsing both candidates for Secretary of State.
In order to accomplish growth in the party, those candidates need to focus on their platforms and not attack one another. This weakens both candidates before the primary election. The aggressor may experience blowback for "going low" and inflicts libel upon their opponent.
With that said, this is a top two. If the candidates coordinate, they might generate enough interest in the Secretary of State race for CA voters to put two greens in the general election. They are running against unknowns and the scrutinised Alex Padilla.
If Erik and Mike can smile wide enough, and Erik starts playing their guitar on the campaign trail, we will see each candidate earn at least 2% apiece.
Of course, there is not an option to endorse all. So I recommend voting against the bylaw interpretation that justifies the contest.
My three cents, Chris Carlson
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2018, at 10:12 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #147 Ranked Choice Vote: GPCA endorsement for Secretary of State Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
The content of statewide races will depend on which candidates officially qualify to be on the California June 2018 Primary Ballot.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_statewide_races
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
-- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
participants (14)
-
Ann Menasche -
Anthony Krzywicki -
Chris -
Erik -
Genevieve Marcus -
Gloria Purcell -
GPCA Votes -
james clark -
June Brashares -
Mimi Newton -
Nassim Nouri -
Nicole Castor -
Sadie Fulton -
Wanda Jean Lord