Genevieve, Aren't we off topic here, in that this is conditions we're asking to put in place when a non-Green seeks our endorsement? This proposal has nothing to do with how we communicate our values to the general public, which I agree is a worthy topic, just not relevant to the question of conditions required for endorsement. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:

Shane,

This conversation mainly addresses non Green people who might be attracted to the Party by a non Green endorsement of someone they admire. Of course, all Green parties should support the 10 Key Values. But some Values, like Decentralization, might not be understood by the 50% of the population that doesn't vote. Especially because this is a big country and the Green Party continues to run candidates to lead it. Does that mean we don't support decentralization or does it mean we recognize that many Americans are immersed in jobs and lifestyles at this time that make decentralization confusing?

Genevieve Marcus

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:54 PM, shane que hee <squehee@ucla.edu> wrote:

...

Genevieve:

I agree with Eric since it is GPCA and not GPUS.

The Pillars are ideal for peopl who want things short , sweet and malleable like millennials

Should all state Green partis hew to the GPUS line of the 4 pillars only?

.....Shane Que Hee, Feb 22 2018

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------

At 07:35 PM 2/21/2018, Genevieve Marcus wrote:

Eric,

The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start.

Genevieve Marcus

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

I put forward the friendly amendment *to* the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.

Eric Brooks

SF, CA

Â

From: gpca-votes [ mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Sadie Fulton Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates

Â

I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)

Â

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:

That is an excellent suggestion.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:

To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that

the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.Â

Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.

That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.

Genevieve Marcus

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com > wrote:

Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.Â

Â

The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.Â

Â

This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.

Â

Please vote yes.

<IMG_4783.jpg>

Â

Â

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:

I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.

We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).

Regards,

Thomas Leavitt

Â

Â

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:

Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

Â

Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:

Â

Ranked Choice Vote ID #155

Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates

Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck

Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018

Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018

Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time

Â

BackgroundÂ

Â

The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.

Â

Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring†and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers†or “third-party†candidates who “can’t win,†the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,†not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Â

Â

Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,†while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party†or “big tent†for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third†party with a narrow “sectarian†view of how change happens.

Â

Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.

Â

Proposal

Â

That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:

Â

That the policy be amended from its current text:

Â

GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)

Â

2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.

Â

To read as follow:

Â

GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS

Â

2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.

Â

Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.

Â

Full details will be available at:Â http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_v ote_bylaw_interpretations

Â

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

Â

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

Erik Rydberg

Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson

erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>

[image: []] Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â cagreens.org

Â

Â

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- *"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

Again, talking to the GENERAL PUBLIC most of whom know little other than life in a big country like the U.S. about decentralizing would be largely meaningless. It's a complex topic for novices. Some would say we're already decentralized... into states and cities. However, the 4 Pillars are familiar and the candidate can talk about how the GP plans to implement them. Genevieve Marcus On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

I don’t think it is off topic. Endorsement of candidates is one way that the Green Party communicates with the public.

I completely disagree with Genevieve’s thesis though.

The way that we get the general public to start realizing what decentralization is and why it is important to their lives, is to endorse candidates who will talk about it.

Eric Brooks

SF, CA

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Leavitt *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 6:56 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates

Genevieve,

Aren't we off topic here, in that this is conditions we're asking to put in place when a non-Green seeks our endorsement? This proposal has nothing to do with how we communicate our values to the general public, which I agree is a worthy topic, just not relevant to the question of conditions required for endorsement.

Regards,

Thomas Leavitt

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:

Shane,

This conversation mainly addresses non Green people who might be attracted to the Party by a non Green endorsement of someone they admire.

Of course, all Green parties should support the 10 Key Values. But some Values, like Decentralization, might not be understood by the 50%

of the population that doesn't vote. Especially because this is a big country and the Green Party continues to run candidates to lead it. Does that mean we don't support decentralization or does it mean we recognize that many Americans are immersed in jobs and lifestyles at this time

that make decentralization confusing?

Genevieve Marcus

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:54 PM, shane que hee <squehee@ucla.edu> wrote:

Genevieve:

I agree with Eric since it is GPCA and not GPUS.

The Pillars are ideal for peopl who want things short , sweet and malleable like millennials

Should all state Green partis hew to the GPUS line of the 4 pillars only?

.....Shane Que Hee, Feb 22 2018

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------

At 07:35 PM 2/21/2018, Genevieve Marcus wrote:

Eric,

The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start.

Genevieve Marcus

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:

I put forward the friendly amendment *to* the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars.

Eric Brooks

SF, CA

Â

From: gpca-votes [ mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Sadie Fulton

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM

To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >

Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates

Â

I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)

Â

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:

That is an excellent suggestion.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:

To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that

the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard.Â

Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence.

That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate.

Genevieve Marcus

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com > wrote:

Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.Â

Â

The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.Â

Â

This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.

Â

Please vote yes.

<IMG_4783.jpg>

Â

Â

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:

I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party.

We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).

Regards,

Thomas Leavitt

Â

Â

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:

Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

Â

Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:

Â

Ranked Choice Vote ID #155

Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates

Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck

Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018

Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018

Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time

Â

BackgroundÂ

Â

The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.

Â

Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring†and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers†or “third-party†candidates who “can’t win,†the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,†not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California. Â

Â

Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,†while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party†or “big tent†for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third†party with a narrow “sectarian†view of how change happens.

Â

Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.

Â

Proposal

Â

That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:

Â

That the policy be amended from its current text:

Â

GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)

Â

2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.

Â

To read as follow:

Â

GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS

Â

2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.

Â

Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.

Â

Full details will be available at:Â http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_ vote_bylaw_interpretations

Â

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

Â

--

gpca-votes mailing list

gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

Erik Rydberg

Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson

erikrydberg34@gmail.com

530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>

[image: []]

               cagreens.org

Â

Â

--

gpca-votes mailing list

gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

--

gpca-votes mailing list

gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

gpca-votes mailing list

gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

gpca-votes mailing list

gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--

*"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

-- *"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 *

Thank you Genevieve for your thoughtful, logical, and practical enough to be simply implemented ideas below about the 4 pillars.  I appreciate them and agree with them. 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 24, 2018 at 9:15 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Again, talking to the GENERAL PUBLIC most of whom know little other than life in a big country like the U.S. about decentralizing would be largely meaningless. It's a complex topic for novices. Some would say we're already decentralized... into states and cities. However, the 4 Pillars are familiar and the candidate can talk about how the GP plans to implement them. Genevieve Marcus On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: I don’t think it is off topic. Endorsement of candidates is one way that the Green Party communicates with the public. I completely disagree with Genevieve’s thesis though. The way that we get the general public to start realizing what decentralization is and why it is important to their lives, is to endorse candidates who will talk about it. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Leavitt Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 6:56 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Genevieve, Aren't we off topic here, in that this is conditions we're asking to put in place when a non-Green seeks our endorsement? This proposal has nothing to do with how we communicate our values to the general public, which I agree is a worthy topic, just not relevant to the question of conditions required for endorsement. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Genevieve Marcus <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote: Shane, This conversation mainly addresses non Green people who might be attracted to the Party by a non Green endorsement of someone they admire. Of course, all Green parties should support the 10 Key Values. But some Values, like Decentralization, might not be understood by the 50% of the population that doesn't vote. Especially because this is a big country and the Green Party continues to run candidates to lead it. Does that mean we don't support decentralization or does it mean we recognize that many Americans are immersed in jobs and lifestyles at this time that make decentralization confusing? Genevieve Marcus On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:54 PM, shane que hee <squehee@ucla.edu> wrote: Genevieve: I agree with Eric since it is GPCA and not GPUS. The Pillars are ideal for peopl who want things short , sweet and malleable like millennials Should all state Green partis hew to the GPUS line of the 4 pillars only? .....Shane Que Hee, Feb 22 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 07:35 PM 2/21/2018, Genevieve Marcus wrote: Eric, The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: I put forward the friendly amendment *to* the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars. Eric Brooks SF, CA  From: gpca-votes [ mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Sadie Fulton Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates  I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)  On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote: That is an excellent suggestion. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote: To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard. Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence. That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com > wrote: Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.  The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.  This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.  Please vote yes. <IMG_4783.jpg>   On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party. We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement). Regards, Thomas Leavitt   On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org  Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:  Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time  Background  The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.  Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring†and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers†or “third-party†candidates who “can’t win,†the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,†not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.   Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,†while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party†or “big tent†for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third†party with a narrow “sectarian†view of how change happens.  Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.  Proposal  That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:  That the policy be amended from its current text:  GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)  2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.  To read as follow:  GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS  2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.  Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.  Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations  Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes  -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903                cagreens.org   -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- "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 -- "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 -- "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

Thanks for the affirmation Shane From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of shane que hee <squehee@ucla.edu> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Monday, February 26, 2018 at 1:27 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Wanda: We all agree with the 4 Pillars and 10 Key Values--the question is what is the best test for Calfornia GPCA would-be candidates, vagueness or some definition? One could also have the GPCA Platform as the reference-- A MUCH MORE RIGOROUS TEST. .....Shane Que Hee, Feb 25 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 07:44 PM 2/24/2018, Wanda Jean Lord wrote: Thank you Genevieve for your thoughtful, logical, and practical enough to be simply implemented ideas below about the 4 pillars. I appreciate them and agree with them. 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 24, 2018 at 9:15 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Again, talking to the GENERAL PUBLIC most of whom know little other than life in a big country like the U.S. about decentralizing would be largely meaningless. It's a complex topic for novices. Some would say we're already decentralized... into states and cities. However, the 4 Pillars are familiar and the candidate can talk about how the GP plans to implement them. Genevieve Marcus On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: I don’t think it is off topic. Endorsement of candidates is one way that the Green Party communicates with the public. I completely disagree with Genevieve’s thesis though. The way that we get the general public to start realizing what decentralization is and why it is important to their lives, is to endorse candidates who will talk about it. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [ mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Leavitt Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 6:56 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Genevieve, Aren't we off topic here, in that this is conditions we're asking to put in place when a non-Green seeks our endorsement? This proposal has nothing to do with how we communicate our values to the general public, which I agree is a worthy topic, just not relevant to the question of conditions required for endorsement. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote: Shane, This conversation mainly addresses non Green people who might be attracted to the Party by a non Green endorsement of someone they admire. Of course, all Green parties should support the 10 Key Values. But some Values, like Decentralization, might not be understood by the 50% of the population that doesn't vote. Especially because this is a big country and the Green Party continues to run candidates to lead it. Does that mean we don't support decentralization or does it mean we recognize that many Americans are immersed in jobs and lifestyles at this time that make decentralization confusing? Genevieve Marcus On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:54 PM, shane que hee <squehee@ucla.edu> wrote: Genevieve: I agree with Eric since it is GPCA and not GPUS. The Pillars are ideal for peopl who want things short , sweet and malleable like millennials Should all state Green partis hew to the GPUS line of the 4 pillars only? .....Shane Que Hee, Feb 22 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 07:35 PM 2/21/2018, Genevieve Marcus wrote: Eric, The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: I put forward the friendly amendment *to* the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars. Eric Brooks SF, CA  From: gpca-votes [ mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Sadie Fulton Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates  I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)  On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote: That is an excellent suggestion. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote: To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard. Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence. That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com > wrote: Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Fr-Free Independents, etc.  The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we shoshould become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.  This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.  Please vote yes. <IMG_4783.jpg>   On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party. We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement). Regards, Thomas Leavitt   On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org  Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:  Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time  Background  The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.  Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proproportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring†and yet who hao have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoililers†or “third-party†candidates who “can’t win,À™t win,†the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginnalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Greeeen Party,†not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary ffolks in the nation and certainly in California.   Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow aw and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,†while we display an unwelcoming attitude. ; People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party†or ââ “big tent†for all people who are aligned with our values and stanceses. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third†partyarty with a narrow “sectarian†view of how change happens.<:p>  Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.  Proposal  That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:  That the policy be amended from its current text:  GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)  2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.  To read as follow:  GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS  2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.  Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.  Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations  Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes  -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903                cagreens.org   -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- "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 -- "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 -- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Agree, Jennifer On Feb 24, 2018 10:19 AM, "J HALL" <shallow60@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I continue to come back to the fact that we are a legitimate political party. And, I feel that we should endorse only those from our own legitimate political party. It makes zero sense to me to endorse a non-Green. I can't even wrap my mind around it. As far as I know, DEMS don't endorse Greens or Rs. Rs don't endorse Greens or DEMS, so why in the world would we endorse anyone but a registered Green? Are we insecure about our party? I joined the Greens to be a green and to elect Greens. As a party, I firmly believe we should endorse only Greens. Individual Green Party members are free to do what they wish on election day.

------------------------------ *From:* Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2018 3:11 AM *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates

I don’t think it is off topic. Endorsement of candidates is one way that the Green Party communicates with the public.

I completely disagree with Genevieve’s thesis though.

The way that we get the general public to start realizing what decentralization is and why it is important to their lives, is to endorse candidates who will talk about it.

Eric Brooks SF, CA

*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Leavitt *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 6:56 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates

Genevieve, Aren't we off topic here, in that this is conditions we're asking to put in place when a non-Green seeks our endorsement? This proposal has nothing to do with how we communicate our values to the general public, which I agree is a worthy topic, just not relevant to the question of conditions required for endorsement. Regards, Thomas Leavitt

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:

Shane,

This conversation mainly addresses non Green people who might be attracted to the Party by a non Green endorsement of someone they admire. Of course, all Green parties should support the 10 Key Values. But some Values, like Decentralization, might not be understood by the 50% of the population that doesn't vote. Especially because this is a big country and the Green Party continues to run candidates to lead it. Does that mean we don't support decentralization or does it mean we recognize that many Americans are immersed in jobs and lifestyles at this time that make decentralization confusing? Genevieve Marcus

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:54 PM, shane que hee <squehee@ucla.edu> wrote:

Genevieve:

I agree with Eric since it is GPCA and not GPUS.

The Pillars are ideal for peopl who want things short , sweet and malleable like millennials

Should all state Green partis hew to the GPUS line of the 4 pillars only?

.....Shane Que Hee, Feb 22 2018

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------

At 07:35 PM 2/21/2018, Genevieve Marcus wrote:

Eric,

The 10 Key Values are a bit extreme for attracting new Green voters. The 4 Pillars are a more acceptable start.

Genevieve Marcus

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:36 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote: I put forward the friendly amendment *to* the proposed amendment to make it the 10 Key Values rather than 4 Pillars. Eric Brooks SF, CA  From: gpca-votes [ mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Sadie Fulton Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:04 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates  I agree - Genevieve's proposal sounds fantastic. Win/win. :)  On Wed, Feb 21, 2018, 13:17 Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote: That is an excellent suggestion. Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Genevieve Marcus < genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote: To reconcile these two excellent opinions, what if, in addition to not accepting corporate funding we added a requirement that the prospective endorsee supports our Four Pillars? That shouldn't be hard. Then, when we announce our endorsement, we would mention that among the reasons for the endorsement is the fact that s/he also supports the GP values expressed in our Four Pillars: Grassroots Democracy, Social Justice and Equality, Ecological Wisdom, and Non-Violence. That way we promote the GP as well as the candidate. Genevieve Marcus On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com > wrote: Everyone read the language. We will not endorse candidates that take Corporate Money or who belong to parties that take Corporate Money. This proposal clearly prohibits endorsing Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, American Independent, etc. But it opens the doors for Peace and Freedom(badly wants to work with us), Socialist Alternative, African People’s Socialist Party, Corporate-Free Independents, etc.  The oldest Green Party in the United States is the Maine Green Independent Party. They were the first one to form in 1984. They opened their ballot to Independents and even hyphenated their name and they currently are running more candidates than any state party. 38 compared to our 18. I’m not suggesting we hyphenate our name but we should become the vehicle for corporate free parties and candidates.  This proposal sends a signal that we are inclusive to Socialists and corporate free parties and candidates.  Please vote yes. <IMG_4783.jpg>   On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:43 AM Thomas Leavitt <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I oppose this. What drew me to the Green Party in 1990 was the idea that to be a member of the Green Party, you MUST adhere to the Ten Key Values (and if you did not do so, you could not be an active member), that the Green Party was a party of principle, that refused to compromise its core values for the purposes of political advantage. Unlike the Democrats, who bluntly stated "we would rather be a party of the majority, than a party of principle" (the individual who said this was later convicted of corruption and removed from office). Candidates running for office in other parties are not obligated to abide by Green principles, or to adhere to the Green Party Platform, and are not accountable to the membership of our party. We should not be endorsing any candidate not registered as a Green, and running on the Green Party ticket (unless the office is non-partisan and the candidate cannot run as a Green). The Green Party of California exists to promote the Green Party, and to support and promote Green Party candidates. Our limited resources should be focused on promoting our own candidates and our own party. If people want access to them, they can seek our endorsement and run on our ballot line. The logic behind this will inevitably lead to justifying our endorsement of "progressive Democrats" who ostensibly refuse contributions from PACs and corporations (while benefiting from corporate funded Democratic Party resources deployed on their behalf); more importantly, it will be the functional death of our party as ambitious individuals seek office as "independents" with the goal of having their cake (our endorsement) and eating it (not being accountable to our party once elected); the likely result should such individuals be elected is affiliation with the Democrats for purely pragmatic reasons (and as the consequence of extreme peer pressure from fellow electeds). We already lose enough folks to the Democratic Party as it is. We are not a political lobby, we do not make general purpose endorsements. Either you're a Green, or you're something else (and not eligible for our state party's endorsement).

Regards, Thomas Leavitt   On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:43 PM, GPCA Votes <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org  Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:  Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time  Background  The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.  Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring†and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers†or “third-party†candidates who “can’t win,†the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,†not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.   Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,†while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party†or “big tent†for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third†party with a narrow “sectarian†view of how change happens.  Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.  Proposal  That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:  That the policy be amended from its current text:  GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)  2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.  To read as follow:  GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS  2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.  Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.  Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_ vote_bylaw_interpretations  Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes  -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903 [image: []]                cagreens.org  Â

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- *"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 *

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

...

As far as I know, DEMS don't endorse Greens

Depends where and what races. San Francisco had a number of Dems endorse Matt Gonzalez when he ran for mayor as a Green - imagine no one endorses a mayoral candidate because they cannot cross party lines, and then he wins? That would be a stupid move politically! And in Solano County many Dems openly supported our Green school board candidate. Richmond has a Progressive Alliance - what is the point of any such effort if Progressives cannot cross party lines to endorse? In some areas it probably never happens, and that’s fine, but other areas are different. We need to not try to police everyone but trust that Greens can assess the various situations and make their own decisions. Solano County has already endorsed an NPP, a woman who has abided the ten key values for many years as a Green. We think electing her is more important than a party line. Millions of people may lead better lives if she is elected, and she is not aa Democrat, takes no corporate money, etc. Victoria Solano County Sent from my iPad

On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:16 AM, J HALL <shallow60@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

As far as I know, DEMS don't endorse Greens

Individuals and even clubs/ County Central Committees are much different than the CA Dem Party endorsing a Green which is essentially what this proposal is asking the state GP to do On Feb 24, 2018 2:36 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:

Victoria,

Are you talking about individual Democrats, or officially affiliated Democratic Party organizations, like clubs and Central Committees? Individual Dems can and do endorse at will. Clubs and Central Committees have bylaws prohibiting it, but you'll see Dems ignore their own bylaws and make exceptions when they need to do so in order to remain relevant to the electoral process. You'll never get a Dem Central Committee endorsing a non-Dem, but the clubs will, if the candidate is compelling enough that they can run a credible campaign even without them. Especially the progressive clubs that see Greens as leverage against more conservative elements within their own party. I saw this happen at one point in Santa Cruz County.

Regards, Thomas Leavitt

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Victoria Ashley <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:

...

...

...

As far as I know, DEMS don't endorse Greens

Depends where and what races. San Francisco had a number of Dems endorse Matt Gonzalez when he ran for mayor as a Green - imagine no one endorses a mayoral candidate because they cannot cross party lines, and then he wins? That would be a stupid move politically! And in Solano County many Dems openly supported our Green school board candidate. Richmond has a Progressive Alliance - what is the point of any such effort if Progressives cannot cross party lines to endorse?

In some areas it probably never happens, and that’s fine, but other areas are different. We need to not try to police everyone but trust that Greens can assess the various situations and make their own decisions.

Solano County has already endorsed an NPP, a woman who has abided the ten key values for many years as a Green. We think electing her is more important than a party line. Millions of people may lead better lives if she is elected, and she is not aa Democrat, takes no corporate money, etc.

Victoria Solano County

Sent from my iPad

...

On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:16 AM, J HALL <shallow60@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

As far as I know, DEMS don't endorse Greens

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

Victoria: I think the only way we have a chance under Top Two is to allow open primaries for our Green Party candidates to allow us to compete with those Dem internal divisions. If we don't allow dissident Dems who are NOTA in thir own Dem Party to vote for our candidates we will always remain small and just a pressure group and scapegoat on their left. Only the Top Two irrespective of party go to the Nov election remember. ;;;;;Shane Que Hee, Feb 24 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 10:47 AM 2/24/2018, Victoria Ashley wrote:

...

...

As far as I know, DEMS don't endorse Greens Depends where and what races. San Francisco had a number of Dems endorse Matt Gonzalez when he ran for mayor as a Green - imagine no one endorses a mayoral candidate because they cannot cross party lines, and then he wins? That would be a stupid move politically! And in Solano County many Dems openly supported our Green school board candidate. Richmond has a Progressive Alliance - what is the point of any such effort if Progressives cannot cross party lines to endorse? In some areas it probably never happens, and that’s fine, but other areas are different. We need to not try to police everyone but trust that Greens can assess the various situations and make their own decisions. Solano County has already endorsed an NPP, a woman who has abided the ten key values for many years as a Green. We think electing her is more important than a party line. Millions of people may lead better lives if she is elected, and she is not aa Democrat, takes no corporate money, etc. Victoria Solano County Sent from my iPad > On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:16 AM, J HALL <shallow60@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > As far as I know, DEMS don't endorse Greens -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes