Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
*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 #145 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Governor* Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time 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>*
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. On Feb 14, 2018 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 #145 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Governor* Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
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
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote. We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in office ever. Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This endorsement process is long overdue. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *Erik Rydberg * *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* *erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903* cagreens.org
Erik, "CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media." According to Secretary of State, 91,631 as of January 2, 2018. 94,720 as of February 10, 2017. We have lost 3,000 party members in less than 1 year. 94,647 in Nov 16. 77,868 in May 16. 109,836 in Feb 15. 110,511 in Nov 14. 109,674 in May 14. 108,785 in Dec 13. All of these statistics show growth/decline in the party since the last gubernatorial election in 2014. In 2014 that the Green Party of California tried the exact strategy you are supporting now. Feeling been robbed of a primary, a single candidate was endorsed for each statewide office. Comparing Jan 2018 to Dec 2013, we are seeing a loss of (108,785 - 91,631) 17,154 registered voters. That amounts to a net loss of 15%. If we continue forward with the same strategy we tried in the 2014 election, we stand to lose another 15%, and by compare the May 2014 total to the May 2016 to say we could lose another 29% of what we have today. That would leave the Green Party sitting at an approximate registration of 67,250 going into May 2020. We have tried this strategy before and it has failed to generate growth in the party. In 2014 our single Green Governors Candidate Luis J. Rodriguez received 66,872 total votes (Wikipedia) totaling 1.54%. If all registered Greens had voted, Luis would have earned 2.5% of the vote. Meanwhile, over in the controller race, Laura Wells snagged 231,352 votes, almost two for every one registered Green. Where is Luis now? And why did he not receive the votes of all 109,674 registered Greens at the time? Is a Green running in a Controller race? On to the 2010 Primary, that we were robbed of. Only 19% of registered Greens (22,081) turned out to vote. Laura Wells went on to claim 129,231 votes, (1.2%) against the establishment parties in the General Election. Laura received 15,400 votes above the 113,835 tally of registered Greens, a 1.2% voteshare. Rodriguez improved upon her voteshare by 22%. If you believe that a single candidate can truly win a seat in the top two Governor's primary, or the Secretary of State's, the Greens carried 1.54% in 2014 under top-two, and 1.2% in 2010 with an official state primary. We have no data suggesting one Green will fare better starting with fewer registered voters. The SF Berniecrats endorsed Delaine Eastin after Josh Jones approached them for support. Mad respect, Chris Carlson On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote.
We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in office ever.
Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This endorsement process is long overdue.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
Sorry, there were some grammar errors. *In 2014 /that, *By comparing. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Christopher Carlson < chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik,
"CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media." According to Secretary of State, 91,631 as of January 2, 2018. 94,720 as of February 10, 2017. We have lost 3,000 party members in less than 1 year. 94,647 in Nov 16. 77,868 in May 16. 109,836 in Feb 15. 110,511 in Nov 14. 109,674 in May 14. 108,785 in Dec 13.
All of these statistics show growth/decline in the party since the last gubernatorial election in 2014. In 2014 that the Green Party of California tried the exact strategy you are supporting now. Feeling been robbed of a primary, a single candidate was endorsed for each statewide office. Comparing Jan 2018 to Dec 2013, we are seeing a loss of (108,785 - 91,631) 17,154 registered voters.
That amounts to a net loss of 15%.
If we continue forward with the same strategy we tried in the 2014 election, we stand to lose another 15%, and by compare the May 2014 total to the May 2016 to say we could lose another 29% of what we have today. That would leave the Green Party sitting at an approximate registration of 67,250 going into May 2020.
We have tried this strategy before and it has failed to generate growth in the party. In 2014 our single Green Governors Candidate Luis J. Rodriguez received 66,872 total votes (Wikipedia) totaling 1.54%. If all registered Greens had voted, Luis would have earned 2.5% of the vote. Meanwhile, over in the controller race, Laura Wells snagged 231,352 votes, almost two for every one registered Green. Where is Luis now? And why did he not receive the votes of all 109,674 registered Greens at the time? Is a Green running in a Controller race?
On to the 2010 Primary, that we were robbed of. Only 19% of registered Greens (22,081) turned out to vote. Laura Wells went on to claim 129,231 votes, (1.2%) against the establishment parties in the General Election. Laura received 15,400 votes above the 113,835 tally of registered Greens, a 1.2% voteshare. Rodriguez improved upon her voteshare by 22%.
If you believe that a single candidate can truly win a seat in the top two Governor's primary, or the Secretary of State's, the Greens carried 1.54% in 2014 under top-two, and 1.2% in 2010 with an official state primary. We have no data suggesting one Green will fare better starting with fewer registered voters.
The SF Berniecrats endorsed Delaine Eastin after Josh Jones approached them for support.
Mad respect, Chris Carlson
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote.
We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in office ever.
Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This endorsement process is long overdue.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
Totally agree that we place the most likely to garner public support candidate on the ballot. When playing the game, we should choose the strategy that keeps us on the ballot. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote.
We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in office ever.
Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This endorsement process is long overdue.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Thank you Jeff. We do not have millions of registered Greens in California like the Democrats and Republicans. We don’t even have as many registered as the Libertarians. Yet we have 69 elected local level candidates in comparison to Libertarians 14. What does that say? That people want Greens but we aren’t telling them who to vote for and we aren’t doing outreach on the state level. We are expecting them to stumble onto Green Candidates on their own and forcing the candidates to do all their own outreach and fundraising. This is not a recipe for success and we have years of proof to show us that. We have to do more than just endorse candidates... we have to actively campaign, fundraise and provide support for their campaigns via campaign managers, treasurers, street teams, websites, etc. Do it yourself statewide candidacies produce the kind of results you’d expect. Maybe 1-2%. This endorsement process allows us to endorse every candidate if we so choose(which I disagree with there should only be one). It allows us to refuse endorsements for people who run on our ballot that don’t follow our 10 Key Values(Nazis/Corporate Candidates), it allows us to then promote, fundraise and outreach for candidates which is so badly needed and should have been happening 2 months ago and that’s why this proposal exists. Because we need it for the future as much or more than we need it for 2018 The only reason I can see to oppose this amendment is either clinging to ideology that the system doesn’t support and we can’t do anything about... or if a candidate or their supporters were afraid that their candidate may not have enough support from the party to garner an endorsement. Vote yes on this new endorsement process. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:23 AM Jeff Lebow <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Totally agree that we place the most likely to garner public support candidate on the ballot. When playing the game, we should choose the strategy that keeps us on the ballot.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote.
We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in office ever.
Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This endorsement process is long overdue.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *Erik Rydberg * *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* *erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903* cagreens.org
Erik,
The only reason I can see to oppose this amendment is either clinging to ideology that the system doesn’t support and we can’t do anything about... or if a candidate or their supporters were afraid that their candidate may not have enough support from the party to garner an endorsement.
If those are the only reasons you observe, you have either ignored the reasons offered in opposition or are deliberately misrepresenting them. Supposing this vote were to proceed, and you failed to garner the 2/3 majority necessary for an endorsement. Would you continue running? Thank you, Chris Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Jeff. We do not have millions of registered Greens in California like the Democrats and Republicans. We don’t even have as many registered as the Libertarians. Yet we have 69 elected local level candidates in comparison to Libertarians 14.
What does that say? That people want Greens but we aren’t telling them who to vote for and we aren’t doing outreach on the state level. We are expecting them to stumble onto Green Candidates on their own and forcing the candidates to do all their own outreach and fundraising. This is not a recipe for success and we have years of proof to show us that.
We have to do more than just endorse candidates... we have to actively campaign, fundraise and provide support for their campaigns via campaign managers, treasurers, street teams, websites, etc. Do it yourself statewide candidacies produce the kind of results you’d expect. Maybe 1-2%.
This endorsement process allows us to endorse every candidate if we so choose(which I disagree with there should only be one). It allows us to refuse endorsements for people who run on our ballot that don’t follow our 10 Key Values(Nazis/Corporate Candidates), it allows us to then promote, fundraise and outreach for candidates which is so badly needed and should have been happening 2 months ago and that’s why this proposal exists. Because we need it for the future as much or more than we need it for 2018
The only reason I can see to oppose this amendment is either clinging to ideology that the system doesn’t support and we can’t do anything about... or if a candidate or their supporters were afraid that their candidate may not have enough support from the party to garner an endorsement.
Vote yes on this new endorsement process.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 9:23 AM Jeff Lebow <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote: Totally agree that we place the most likely to garner public support candidate on the ballot. When playing the game, we should choose the strategy that keeps us on the ballot.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote.
We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in office ever.
Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This endorsement process is long overdue.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- 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
Greens, Regarding Thomas' most recent entry on this thread: Thank you for the well-thought-out analysis of the situation. This entry is the reality check needed! One concern is that registration can and likely will decline due to circumstances beyond the control of Green "leadership." In the next Presidential primary, a "progressive" Dem could wipe out a great deal of our registration, and we will struggle just to play catch-up afterward. As our registration declines, obtaining 2% becomes more difficult. The strategy of putting all efforts behind single candidates for seats is not illogical, but should have been inplimented sooner, to echo what Thomas writes. Re: Jeff's entry: This proposal is not meant to decide who will be on the ballot. The candidates running have already put forth effort and it is likely multiple Greens will be on the same seat ticket on the primary nallot. The SGA vote is to decide which of these candidates has gained the state party's endorsement. This only has the effect of displaying to voters which candidates the GPCA recommends. What CA voters don't know is that the endorsement would actually be representing which candidates successfully campaigned the SGA, specifically. It's too late, at this point, to effect such a strategy in a democratic way. I'd urge SGA voters to recognize this and vote NO on the endorsement strategy or abstain if they are unsure. -N On Feb 17, 2018 9:23 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Totally agree that we place the most likely to garner public support candidate on the ballot. When playing the game, we should choose the strategy that keeps us on the ballot.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote.
We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in office ever.
Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This endorsement process is long overdue.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Now that June has clarified that the GPCA has the ability to endorse multiple candidates, should they prove capable of gaining the support of 2/3rds of the SGA, which I think is in alignment with our values, I think the nature of this debate is now substantially different, and that most folks, assuming the context is reasonable, would be o.k. with an endorsement process proceeding. As a suggestion, maybe amending the Proposal to have the endorsement process go into effect AFTER this upcoming election cycle is completed, i.e., no short turn around endorsements this time around, would alleviate concerns and lead to greater support of the measure and less conflict? Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Greens,
Regarding Thomas' most recent entry on this thread:
Thank you for the well-thought-out analysis of the situation. This entry is the reality check needed!
One concern is that registration can and likely will decline due to circumstances beyond the control of Green "leadership." In the next Presidential primary, a "progressive" Dem could wipe out a great deal of our registration, and we will struggle just to play catch-up afterward.
As our registration declines, obtaining 2% becomes more difficult. The strategy of putting all efforts behind single candidates for seats is not illogical, but should have been inplimented sooner, to echo what Thomas writes.
Re: Jeff's entry:
This proposal is not meant to decide who will be on the ballot. The candidates running have already put forth effort and it is likely multiple Greens will be on the same seat ticket on the primary nallot.
The SGA vote is to decide which of these candidates has gained the state party's endorsement.
This only has the effect of displaying to voters which candidates the GPCA recommends. What CA voters don't know is that the endorsement would actually be representing which candidates successfully campaigned the SGA, specifically.
It's too late, at this point, to effect such a strategy in a democratic way. I'd urge SGA voters to recognize this and vote NO on the endorsement strategy or abstain if they are unsure.
-N On Feb 17, 2018 9:23 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Totally agree that we place the most likely to garner public support candidate on the ballot. When playing the game, we should choose the strategy that keeps us on the ballot.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
CADEM has 8 million members and corporate media. GPCA has 100,000 and social media. Our primary process was taken from us by Top Two. We are not garaunteed a candidate in the General Election anymore. If we don’t create a system to choose the strongest candidate then we risk multiple green candidates splitting the vote and we could lose party status by not having any statewide candidates reach 2% of the vote.
We also want to actually win a Top Two Primary so keeping the state party from endorsing and fundraising for statewide candidates is political suicide. Some long time Greens suggest that GPCA never raises funds for candidates. And we wonder why we have had zero statewide candidates in office ever.
Time to stop continuing failed strategies and take electoral politics seriously. We are out numbered by capitalist parties and we have to focus our power is we want to actually break the two party system. This endorsement process is long overdue.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
Thank you Anthony, "splitting the base." This keeps coming up. There were already candidates in these races. Those same original candidates are less concerned that the vote will split than the people who entered the races later to split the base. It is a "baseless" threat. "Reach out and get votes" Broadens the base. The June 5 primary is an open primary, which means we aren't competing for green share as much as competing for major party and NPP voters. If every candidate is allowed to proceed with endorsement, each candidate can perform the outreach you profess only one candidate is capable of, to their respective abilities, tripling our return and broadening the base. "Should be started 6 months ago." I agree, which is why it is foolish to consider invalidating the labor of three candidates in messaging for the party. If the vote were to proceed with an "endorse all," which it will not, I would support it more. Chris Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 16, 2018, at 7:02 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
This conversation makes me wonder, in a sincere and thoughtful way, why we have an SGA? It appears to be an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that distances Green decision making from the broadest and most direct community participation & consensus. Do all other state green parties have this level of ‘decision making bodies’ ? Is it a requirement of state green party operations mandated from the national party or is it only the way CA does things – because that’s the way CA does things? Any enlightenment on this question – especially if it is somehow mandated by Green guidance/requirements outside the state of CA – would be very appreciated. From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:48 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Thank you Anthony, "splitting the base." This keeps coming up. There were already candidates in these races. Those same original candidates are less concerned that the vote will split than the people who entered the races later to split the base. It is a "baseless" threat. "Reach out and get votes" Broadens the base. The June 5 primary is an open primary, which means we aren't competing for green share as much as competing for major party and NPP voters. If every candidate is allowed to proceed with endorsement, each candidate can perform the outreach you profess only one candidate is capable of, to their respective abilities, tripling our return and broadening the base. "Should be started 6 months ago." I agree, which is why it is foolish to consider invalidating the labor of three candidates in messaging for the party. If the vote were to proceed with an "endorse all," which it will not, I would support it more. Chris Sent from my iPhone On Feb 16, 2018, at 7:02 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
The SGA was created because otherwise all final party decisions would be made at in-person General Assemblies. We used to do this, and it drastically limited our ability to act on key party decisions quickly. It also disenfranchised any Green volunteer who could not afford, both financially and time-wise, to travel large distances across the state to vote at very infrequent GAs. Having an SGA gives us a much more democratic and effective decision making process, and allows us to vote on far more party decisions in a year. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Wanda Jean Lord Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 10:20 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor This conversation makes me wonder, in a sincere and thoughtful way, why we have an SGA? It appears to be an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that distances Green decision making from the broadest and most direct community participation & consensus. Do all other state green parties have this level of ‘decision making bodies’ ? Is it a requirement of state green party operations mandated from the national party or is it only the way CA does things – because that’s the way CA does things? Any enlightenment on this question – especially if it is somehow mandated by Green guidance/requirements outside the state of CA – would be very appreciated. From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Chris <chris@bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Date: Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:48 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Thank you Anthony, "splitting the base." This keeps coming up. There were already candidates in these races. Those same original candidates are less concerned that the vote will split than the people who entered the races later to split the base. It is a "baseless" threat. "Reach out and get votes" Broadens the base. The June 5 primary is an open primary, which means we aren't competing for green share as much as competing for major party and NPP voters. If every candidate is allowed to proceed with endorsement, each candidate can perform the outreach you profess only one candidate is capable of, to their respective abilities, tripling our return and broadening the base. "Should be started 6 months ago." I agree, which is why it is foolish to consider invalidating the labor of three candidates in messaging for the party. If the vote were to proceed with an "endorse all," which it will not, I would support it more. Chris Sent from my iPhone On Feb 16, 2018, at 7:02 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
-- *Erik Rydberg * *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* *erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903* cagreens.org
I think given the dilemma we are in with Top Two, we really have no choice if we hope to maximize our vote and ensure that we maintain our ballot status but to unite around one candidate. In fact, everyone who is to the Left of the Dems should all be working together and uniting behind a common slate. Ann Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with > > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it > > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access > > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, > > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. > > Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If > that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in > and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before > then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about > all the Green candidates running. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) > http://sfgreens.org/ > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
-- 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
I have not chimed in on an SGA discussion thread before, but I wanted to put my two cents in on this issue. I'm concerned that if we start endorsing primary candidates at the state level, we'll be creating two camps: a Green Party "establishment" choice presented to the voters and Party "outsiders". Rather than dividing the Party by having "insiders" and "outsiders" in every campaign, we should be focusing on unifying the Party...... and getting rid of top two in favor of IRV and PR. Otherwise, we'll be following the path of the Dems & Reps. Party endorsements can happen at the grassroots if each County Council chooses, but the state party should stay out of it. Gary From: Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor I think given the dilemma we are in with Top Two, we really have no choice if we hope to maximize our vote and ensure that we maintain our ballot status but to unite around one candidate. In fact, everyone who is to the Left of the Dems should all be working together and uniting behind a common slate. Ann Sent from my iPhone On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote: Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento CountyOn Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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 Councilwww.venturacountygreenparty.comgreenpartyvc@gmail.cominstagram: greenpartyvccfacebook group: Ventura Green Partyfacebook 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 -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Councilwww.venturacountygreenparty.comgreenpartyvc@gmail.cominstagram: greenpartyvccfacebook group: Ventura Green Partyfacebook 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 -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903 cagreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Why are people's oppositional comments being marked as spam?? On Feb 17, 2018 8:39 PM, "Gary" <blendogg@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have not chimed in on an SGA discussion thread before, but I wanted to put my two cents in on this issue.
I'm concerned that if we start endorsing primary candidates at the state level, we'll be creating two camps: a Green Party "establishment" choice presented to the voters and Party "outsiders". Rather than dividing the Party by having "insiders" and "outsiders" in every campaign, we should be focusing on unifying the Party...... and getting rid of top two in favor of IRV and PR. Otherwise, we'll be following the path of the Dems & Reps. Party endorsements can happen at the grassroots if each County Council chooses, but the state party should stay out of it.
Gary
------------------------------ *From:* Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com> *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Sent:* Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:39 PM *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
I think given the dilemma we are in with Top Two, we really have no choice if we hope to maximize our vote and ensure that we maintain our ballot status but to unite around one candidate. In fact, everyone who is to the Left of the Dems should all be working together and uniting behind a common slate. Ann
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com530-781-2903*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
That’s a glitch in the email list system we are using (which has very sensitive spam filters) and it has happened to both supporters and opponents of the proposal. I think that having images or HTML in your email sometimes triggers it. So just send text only and you should be ok. Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of james clark Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:00 PM To: Gary Blenner <blendogg@yahoo.com>; GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Why are people's oppositional comments being marked as spam?? On Feb 17, 2018 8:39 PM, "Gary" <blendogg@yahoo.com<mailto:blendogg@yahoo.com>> wrote: I have not chimed in on an SGA discussion thread before, but I wanted to put my two cents in on this issue. I'm concerned that if we start endorsing primary candidates at the state level, we'll be creating two camps: a Green Party "establishment" choice presented to the voters and Party "outsiders". Rather than dividing the Party by having "insiders" and "outsiders" in every campaign, we should be focusing on unifying the Party...... and getting rid of top two in favor of IRV and PR. Otherwise, we'll be following the path of the Dems & Reps. Party endorsements can happen at the grassroots if each County Council chooses, but the state party should stay out of it. Gary ________________________________ From: Ann Menasche <aemenasche@gmail.com<mailto:aemenasche@gmail.com>> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 4:39 PM Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor I think given the dilemma we are in with Top Two, we really have no choice if we hope to maximize our vote and ensure that we maintain our ballot status but to unite around one candidate. In fact, everyone who is to the Left of the Dems should all be working together and uniting behind a common slate. Ann Sent from my iPhone On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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<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 -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Lauren & Others, This is what I had said regarding pandering to Sanders' supporters and I do not wish to have my words misrepresented. I acknowledge there is merit to pandering in certain cases but that it seems a disproportionate amount of importance should not be put on it as if it will become our main objective. This is especially important considering the statistics that only around 5% of Sanders' primary voters ended up voting for Jill Stein. "I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. Green Party is a safe space for people who want to vote their values when their values include an opposition to war, for example, which Sanders has not largely demonstrated in his political career. In a statewide race which we are unlikely to win, or make it into the top-two, campaigning our values becomes a bigger goal. We should be careful in how we present our values by way of which candidates were to endorse, that this impression does not illustrate an acceptance of supporting war and other things that the GP generally does not stand for. -N I think given the dilemma we are in with Top Two, we really have no choice if we hope to maximize our vote and ensure that we maintain our ballot status but to unite around one candidate. In fact, everyone who is to the Left of the Dems should all be working together and uniting behind a common slate. Ann Sent from my iPhone On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote: Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
-- *Erik Rydberg * *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* *erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>* cagreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Wanda Jean & Others, Re: "There is a standard to base the measure of identifying the best candidate for a given population – it is called a vote." And the VOTERS have no standard to base the measure of what the "best" candidate is. The terms "best," "most viable," "most likely to win," are all subjective terms when we have no idea how to calculate this and are asked vote with a lack of objective information. The most likely to win the SGA endorsement are not necessarily the "best" candidates, but are the ones who campaigned the most to the SGA delegates, specifically. It is also interesting to note that certain candidate's and their affiliates are Coordinating Committee members who are the very ones bringing up this proposal. Seems like a conflict of interest which I hope delegates notice. -N On Feb 18, 2018 9:06 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Lauren & Others,
This is what I had said regarding pandering to Sanders' supporters and I do not wish to have my words misrepresented. I acknowledge there is merit to pandering in certain cases but that it seems a disproportionate amount of importance should not be put on it as if it will become our main objective. This is especially important considering the statistics that only around 5% of Sanders' primary voters ended up voting for Jill Stein.
"I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
Green Party is a safe space for people who want to vote their values when their values include an opposition to war, for example, which Sanders has not largely demonstrated in his political career. In a statewide race which we are unlikely to win, or make it into the top-two, campaigning our values becomes a bigger goal. We should be careful in how we present our values by way of which candidates were to endorse, that this impression does not illustrate an acceptance of supporting war and other things that the GP generally does not stand for.
-N I think given the dilemma we are in with Top Two, we really have no choice if we hope to maximize our vote and ensure that we maintain our ballot status but to unite around one candidate. In fact, everyone who is to the Left of the Dems should all be working together and uniting behind a common slate. Ann
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow > through with > > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a > process it > > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot > access > > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and > division, > > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. > > Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If > that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in > and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement > before > then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about > all the Green candidates running. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) > http://sfgreens.org/ > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Nicole, all, Unless I missed someone, only three of our GPCA Coordinating Committee Members are running for one of the offices for which we would be endorsing: Angelica Duenas (CD-29; no other Greens running) and Mike Feinstein and Erik Rydberg (Secretary of State; same office; no other Green running). I fail to see how this would be a conflict of interest. If there was someone on the Coordinating Committee running against someone who was not, for the same office, you might have a point, but that's not the case at all. http://www.cagreens.org/committees/coordinating Thank you, Lauren Mauricio Tulare County ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:12 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Wanda Jean & Others, Re: "There is a standard to base the measure of identifying the best candidate for a given population – it is called a vote." And the VOTERS have no standard to base the measure of what the "best" candidate is. The terms "best," "most viable," "most likely to win," are all subjective terms when we have no idea how to calculate this and are asked vote with a lack of objective information. The most likely to win the SGA endorsement are not necessarily the "best" candidates, but are the ones who campaigned the most to the SGA delegates, specifically. It is also interesting to note that certain candidate's and their affiliates are Coordinating Committee members who are the very ones bringing up this proposal. Seems like a conflict of interest which I hope delegates notice. -N On Feb 18, 2018 9:06 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Lauren & Others, This is what I had said regarding pandering to Sanders' supporters and I do not wish to have my words misrepresented. I acknowledge there is merit to pandering in certain cases but that it seems a disproportionate amount of importance should not be put on it as if it will become our main objective. This is especially important considering the statistics that only around 5% of Sanders' primary voters ended up voting for Jill Stein. "I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. Green Party is a safe space for people who want to vote their values when their values include an opposition to war, for example, which Sanders has not largely demonstrated in his political career. In a statewide race which we are unlikely to win, or make it into the top-two, campaigning our values becomes a bigger goal. We should be careful in how we present our values by way of which candidates were to endorse, that this impression does not illustrate an acceptance of supporting war and other things that the GP generally does not stand for. -N I think given the dilemma we are in with Top Two, we really have no choice if we hope to maximize our vote and ensure that we maintain our ballot status but to unite around one candidate. In fact, everyone who is to the Left of the Dems should all be working together and uniting behind a common slate. Ann Sent from my iPhone On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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<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 -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:(530)%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org<http://cagreens.org> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Green Party is a safe space for people who want to vote their values when their values include an opposition to war, for example, which Sanders has not largely demonstrated in his political career.
This is getting pretty far off topic so please do not continue on the path of debating Bernie vs the Greens, safe spaces, etc. If people start debating those issues on here it will be considered off topic and will lead to moderation. You are welcome to start a new thread on the Forum list - http://lists.cagreens.org/listinfo/gpca-forum_lists.cagreens.org Thank you Lauren for bringing up your concerns and Nicole has now clarified her position that she felt was misrepresented. -- Victoria On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Lauren & Others,
This is what I had said regarding pandering to Sanders' supporters and I do not wish to have my words misrepresented. I acknowledge there is merit to pandering in certain cases but that it seems a disproportionate amount of importance should not be put on it as if it will become our main objective. This is especially important considering the statistics that only around 5% of Sanders' primary voters ended up voting for Jill Stein.
"I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
Green Party is a safe space for people who want to vote their values when their values include an opposition to war, for example, which Sanders has not largely demonstrated in his political career. In a statewide race which we are unlikely to win, or make it into the top-two, campaigning our values becomes a bigger goal. We should be careful in how we present our values by way of which candidates were to endorse, that this impression does not illustrate an acceptance of supporting war and other things that the GP generally does not stand for.
-N I think given the dilemma we are in with Top Two, we really have no choice if we hope to maximize our vote and ensure that we maintain our ballot status but to unite around one candidate. In fact, everyone who is to the Left of the Dems should all be working together and uniting behind a common slate. Ann
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow > through with > > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a > process it > > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot > access > > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and > division, > > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. > > Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If > that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in > and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement > before > then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about > all the Green candidates running. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) > http://sfgreens.org/ > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Hi Nicole, I'm sorry you feel I misrepresented what you said. That was not my intention. To be honest, I read it again, and I still don't think I understand what you're saying. So I'll just say this: "pandering" to people is how you get them to vote for you. If our candidates only campaign to Greens and no one else, based on our numbers, we will never, ever win an election. And since Berniecrats really do reflect our values better than most other groups of voters (Bernie's and Jill's platforms matched 99%), it makes sense to start with them. I see no reason to discredit that. Thank you, Lauren Mauricio ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 9:06 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Lauren & Others, This is what I had said regarding pandering to Sanders' supporters and I do not wish to have my words misrepresented. I acknowledge there is merit to pandering in certain cases but that it seems a disproportionate amount of importance should not be put on it as if it will become our main objective. This is especially important considering the statistics that only around 5% of Sanders' primary voters ended up voting for Jill Stein. "I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. Green Party is a safe space for people who want to vote their values when their values include an opposition to war, for example, which Sanders has not largely demonstrated in his political career. In a statewide race which we are unlikely to win, or make it into the top-two, campaigning our values becomes a bigger goal. We should be careful in how we present our values by way of which candidates were to endorse, that this impression does not illustrate an acceptance of supporting war and other things that the GP generally does not stand for. -N I think given the dilemma we are in with Top Two, we really have no choice if we hope to maximize our vote and ensure that we maintain our ballot status but to unite around one candidate. In fact, everyone who is to the Left of the Dems should all be working together and uniting behind a common slate. Ann Sent from my iPhone On Feb 16, 2018, at 11:21 AM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: Identifying the strongest candidate is the best strategy to achieve every goal we want. The strongest candidate will get 2%, build the party and potentially win. Especially if the state party stops hamstringing itself and actually participated in these candidates campaigns and sent out email blasts and helped raise fund. The “You’re on you own strategy.” is unbelievablely lazy and backward. GPCAshould have been publicizing it’s Candidates in January. We have to start being “ahead of the curve.” We can not afford to continue being behind it. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:13 AM Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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<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 -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:(530)%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org<http://cagreens.org> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates. Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office... If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks. It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com
wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in?? On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow > through with > > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a > process it > > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot > access > > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and > division, > > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. > > Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If > that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in > and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement > before > then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about > all the Green candidates running. > > JMC > -- > John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) > http://sfgreens.org/ > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Also note, that several candidates had been putting out the word since last year, building networks, campaigning, strategizing etc. Do you have any policy ideas? Maybe you and Feinstein should have a public debate prior to any vote on endorsement takes place? I would love to help facilitate one here in Sacramento if the two of you are up for it. To claim that people haven't been doing work, just because they haven't done it for you is disingenuous, and ignores the teamwork it took to get these candidates in the ballot. Instead of putting candidates against each other, why not support each other, as I'm seeing several candidates doing? Further such a process should have been done prior to candidates getting their names on the ballot. Once there they are there. There's no changing that, thus making this process meaningless. Not to mention having a small group of deligated decide for the party who will run violates the value of decentralization. My big question though, if splitting the vote is such a concern, why are late to the game candidates trying for offices we already have candidates for?? On Feb 16, 2018 2:36 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some > time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < > jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: >> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow >> through with >> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a >> process it >> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot >> access >> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and >> division, >> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. >> >> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If >> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in >> and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement >> before >> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about >> all the Green candidates running. >> >> JMC >> -- >> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) >> http://sfgreens.org/ >> >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
GPCA could be a fundraising power house that sends out thousands of donation asks and puts on events for candidates. I am not willing to accept GPCA in its current state of do nothingness. If we aren’t helping our candidates win then why do we even have a state party? The point is being missed by many in this thread. Our Primaries were taken from us by capitalists that wanted to limit their competition in General Elections. Our response has been to do nothing and make no preparations to organize prior to the primaries. The “Primaries” are our new “General Election” and we need to start treating it as such because if we don’t get into the Top Two the election cycle is over for us. We need a pre-primary process to organize otherwise we will continue to lose even when we have great candidates because our state party doesn’t lift a finger to help them. This is bigger than the 2018 Elections. We need this process for the future if we want to win statewide elections. I am going to do everything in my power to turn this party into a functioning political party that actually wins state seats. We’ve proven we can win on the local level. It’s time to step our game up and change with the modern times. Doing nothing as a state party is the worst thing we can do. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:43 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Also note, that several candidates had been putting out the word since last year, building networks, campaigning, strategizing etc. Do you have any policy ideas? Maybe you and Feinstein should have a public debate prior to any vote on endorsement takes place? I would love to help facilitate one here in Sacramento if the two of you are up for it.
To claim that people haven't been doing work, just because they haven't done it for you is disingenuous, and ignores the teamwork it took to get these candidates in the ballot. Instead of putting candidates against each other, why not support each other, as I'm seeing several candidates doing?
Further such a process should have been done prior to candidates getting their names on the ballot. Once there they are there. There's no changing that, thus making this process meaningless. Not to mention having a small group of deligated decide for the party who will run violates the value of decentralization.
My big question though, if splitting the vote is such a concern, why are late to the game candidates trying for offices we already have candidates for??
On Feb 16, 2018 2:36 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
> One major concern is that this process would take power out of the > voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It > seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote > for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the > ballot. > > On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some >> time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. >> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < >> jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: >>> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow >>> through with >>> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a >>> process it >>> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot >>> access >>> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and >>> division, >>> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. >>> >>> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If >>> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in >>> and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement >>> before >>> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about >>> all the Green candidates running. >>> >>> JMC >>> -- >>> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) >>> http://sfgreens.org/ >>> >>> -- >>> gpca-votes mailing list >>> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/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
Well said Eric On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:27 PM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
GPCA could be a fundraising power house that sends out thousands of donation asks and puts on events for candidates. I am not willing to accept GPCA in its current state of do nothingness. If we aren’t helping our candidates win then why do we even have a state party? The point is being missed by many in this thread. Our Primaries were taken from us by capitalists that wanted to limit their competition in General Elections. Our response has been to do nothing and make no preparations to organize prior to the primaries. The “Primaries” are our new “General Election” and we need to start treating it as such because if we don’t get into the Top Two the election cycle is over for us. We need a pre-primary process to organize otherwise we will continue to lose even when we have great candidates because our state party doesn’t lift a finger to help them. This is bigger than the 2018 Elections. We need this process for the future if we want to win statewide elections. I am going to do everything in my power to turn this party into a functioning political party that actually wins state seats. We’ve proven we can win on the local level. It’s time to step our game up and change with the modern times. Doing nothing as a state party is the worst thing we can do.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:43 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Also note, that several candidates had been putting out the word since last year, building networks, campaigning, strategizing etc. Do you have any policy ideas? Maybe you and Feinstein should have a public debate prior to any vote on endorsement takes place? I would love to help facilitate one here in Sacramento if the two of you are up for it.
To claim that people haven't been doing work, just because they haven't done it for you is disingenuous, and ignores the teamwork it took to get these candidates in the ballot. Instead of putting candidates against each other, why not support each other, as I'm seeing several candidates doing?
Further such a process should have been done prior to candidates getting their names on the ballot. Once there they are there. There's no changing that, thus making this process meaningless. Not to mention having a small group of deligated decide for the party who will run violates the value of decentralization.
My big question though, if splitting the vote is such a concern, why are late to the game candidates trying for offices we already have candidates for??
On Feb 16, 2018 2:36 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor < nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We > need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out > and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. > Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a > such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split > that? > > Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so > we could already be backing a unified candidate. > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> One major concern is that this process would take power out of the >> voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It >> seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote >> for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the >> ballot. >> >> On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give >>> some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < >>> jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: >>>> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow >>>> through with >>>> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such >>>> a process it >>>> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot >>>> access >>>> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and >>>> division, >>>> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. >>>> >>>> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If >>>> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is >>>> in >>>> and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement >>>> before >>>> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens >>>> about >>>> all the Green candidates running. >>>> >>>> JMC >>>> -- >>>> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) >>>> http://sfgreens.org/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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 > > -- 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- 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
I agree with Erik 100% on this as well. We should have organized ourselves quite a while ago for maximum unity and effectiveness in the top two primary but better late than never. Ann Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Well said Eric
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:27 PM Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote: GPCA could be a fundraising power house that sends out thousands of donation asks and puts on events for candidates. I am not willing to accept GPCA in its current state of do nothingness. If we aren’t helping our candidates win then why do we even have a state party? The point is being missed by many in this thread. Our Primaries were taken from us by capitalists that wanted to limit their competition in General Elections. Our response has been to do nothing and make no preparations to organize prior to the primaries. The “Primaries” are our new “General Election” and we need to start treating it as such because if we don’t get into the Top Two the election cycle is over for us. We need a pre-primary process to organize otherwise we will continue to lose even when we have great candidates because our state party doesn’t lift a finger to help them. This is bigger than the 2018 Elections. We need this process for the future if we want to win statewide elections. I am going to do everything in my power to turn this party into a functioning political party that actually wins state seats. We’ve proven we can win on the local level. It’s time to step our game up and change with the modern times. Doing nothing as a state party is the worst thing we can do.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:43 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Also note, that several candidates had been putting out the word since last year, building networks, campaigning, strategizing etc. Do you have any policy ideas? Maybe you and Feinstein should have a public debate prior to any vote on endorsement takes place? I would love to help facilitate one here in Sacramento if the two of you are up for it.
To claim that people haven't been doing work, just because they haven't done it for you is disingenuous, and ignores the teamwork it took to get these candidates in the ballot. Instead of putting candidates against each other, why not support each other, as I'm seeing several candidates doing?
Further such a process should have been done prior to candidates getting their names on the ballot. Once there they are there. There's no changing that, thus making this process meaningless. Not to mention having a small group of deligated decide for the party who will run violates the value of decentralization.
My big question though, if splitting the vote is such a concern, why are late to the game candidates trying for offices we already have candidates for??
On Feb 16, 2018 2:36 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: > Anthony & Others, > > I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. > > If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. > > I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. > > There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. > > I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. > > -Nicole Castor > GP Sacramento County > >> On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: >> Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? >> >> Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. >> >>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: >>> One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. >>> >>>> On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: >>>>> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with >>>>> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it >>>>> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access >>>>> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, >>>>> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. >>>>> >>>>> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If >>>>> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in >>>>> and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before >>>>> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about >>>>> all the Green candidates running. >>>>> >>>>> JMC >>>>> -- >>>>> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) >>>>> http://sfgreens.org/ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> gpca-votes mailing list >>>>> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
-- 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
-- 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
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc, Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this. "One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot." On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some > time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < > jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: >> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow >> through with >> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a >> process it >> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot >> access >> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and >> division, >> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. >> >> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If >> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in >> and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement >> before >> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about >> all the Green candidates running. >> >> JMC >> -- >> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) >> http://sfgreens.org/ >> >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/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 the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status. Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192 "We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote: Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc, Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this. | | | | "One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot." On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in?? On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates. Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office... If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks. It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc. Regards,Thomas Leavitt On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Councilwww.venturacountygreenparty.co mgreenpartyvc@gmail.cominstagram: greenpartyvccfacebook group: Ventura Green Partyfacebook group: Ventura County Green Party It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Councilwww.venturacountygreenparty.co mgreenpartyvc@gmail.cominstagram: greenpartyvccfacebook group: Ventura Green Partyfacebook group: Ventura County Green Party It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Sean, That is an excellent point. I am concerned that three Green candidates will officially become "spoilers" lacking official party endorsement, and The state party may take aggressive action to decertify or expel these spoilers by invalidating their party membership to disable their otherwise ballot ready campaigns. It does invalidate the efforts of three statewide candidates. It does intervene in grassroots democracy to affect the wills of other greens, which violates decentralization principles as well. Why are we afraid to trust inactive, registered green voters to make a choice so that we are "advising" them? It shows lack of faith. Thank you, Chris
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (
Just so that everyone understands the process. No one is going to ‘invalidate’ anyone. That would take a two thirds vote all of you, here in the SGA, or at General Assembly, and that is unlikely to ever happen, unless a candidate has done something really bad that is criminal and/or deeply violates the 10 key values of the party. Let’s try to remember that we are not Democrats, and that we are all on the same side here. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Chris Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 6:11 PM To: Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> Cc: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Sean, That is an excellent point. I am concerned that three Green candidates will officially become "spoilers" lacking official party endorsement, and The state party may take aggressive action to decertify or expel these spoilers by invalidating their party membership to disable their otherwise ballot ready campaigns. It does invalidate the efforts of three statewide candidates. It does intervene in grassroots democracy to affect the wills of other greens, which violates decentralization principles as well. Why are we afraid to trust inactive, registered green voters to make a choice so that we are "advising" them? It shows lack of faith. Thank you, Chris On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com<mailto:sbohac@yahoo.com>> wrote: If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status. Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192 "We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote: Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc, Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this. [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif] "One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot." On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in?? On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates. Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office... If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks. It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (
The invalidation comes inadvertently from endorsing single candidates On Feb 18, 2018 7:56 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
Just so that everyone understands the process. No one is going to ‘invalidate’ anyone. That would take a two thirds vote all of you, here in the SGA, or at General Assembly, and that is unlikely to ever happen, unless a candidate has done something really bad that is criminal and/or deeply violates the 10 key values of the party.
Let’s try to remember that we are not Democrats, and that we are all on the same side here.
Eric Brooks
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 6:11 PM *To:* Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> *Cc:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Sean,
That is an excellent point. I am concerned that three Green candidates will officially become "spoilers" lacking official party endorsement, and The state party may take aggressive action to decertify or expel these spoilers by invalidating their party membership to disable their otherwise ballot ready campaigns.
It does invalidate the efforts of three statewide candidates. It does intervene in grassroots democracy to affect the wills of other greens, which violates decentralization principles as well.
Why are we afraid to trust inactive, registered green voters to make a choice so that we are "advising" them? It shows lack of faith.
Thank you,
Chris
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
*Sean Bohac* (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson < chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens. On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson < chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties. Shouldn’t all SGA delegates bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input? We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well. It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate. Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative? If so, why participate in votes as delegates? Nassim Nouri Santa Clara County
On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Hi Nassim, For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here. However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t. Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not. I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago. And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane). ☺ Wanda From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties. Shouldn’t all SGA delegates bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input? We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well. It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate. Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative? If so, why participate in votes as delegates? Nassim Nouri Santa Clara County On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens. On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote: I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
If the SGA members were elected they would be no different than the GA. Genevieve Marcus On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nassim,
For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here.
However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t.
Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not.
I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago.
And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane).
☺
Wanda
*From: *gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> *Reply-To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Date: *Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM *To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject: *Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties.
Shouldn’t all SGA delegates
bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input?
We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well.
It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to
participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate.
Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative?
If so, why participate in votes as delegates?
Nassim Nouri
Santa Clara County
On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson < chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 *
Greens, Re Lauren, I understand what you're saying re Berniecrats. It's not totally where i was going w/ it but I'll pm you another time bc it's kinda off topic here since i last checked in. There is a member of CC & CCWG who is the campaign manager of a candidate asking for endorsement as well as two others on CC running for statewide office, seeking endorsement. One of said candidates voted *against* this proposal in a CCWG call. When minutes are released, the rest of GPCA will be able to read who brought the proposal and who voted for/against. Since i had been told that bringing this up violated email decorum, i would also like to add for the record, that i bring up the *issue* of a conflict of interest as an issue which voters should be aware, not as something *personal* which is why i am not naming names. I urge the admins to release all info on the proposal, including how it was brought up and ended up in an SGA vote, promptly enough so that delegates may consult with their county parties. We deserve to have as much transparency as possible with this vote. -N On Feb 19, 2018 12:03 PM, "Genevieve Marcus" <genevieve.marcus@gmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA members were elected they would be no different than the GA.
Genevieve Marcus
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nassim,
For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here.
However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t.
Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not.
I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago.
And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane).
☺
Wanda
*From: *gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> *Reply-To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Date: *Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM *To: *GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject: *Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties.
Shouldn’t all SGA delegates
bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input?
We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well.
It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to
participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate.
Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative?
If so, why participate in votes as delegates?
Nassim Nouri
Santa Clara County
On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson < chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co m greenpartyvc@gmail.com instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca- votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776 *
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I apologize that I was not clear, my comments were not directed at your post, Wanda. ;-) My specific question was on the notion that these specific endorsement SGA votes, do not represent the Greens we are suppose to be delegates for. On the issue of SGA vs. GA, I fully agree with you about the down side of having two parallel decisions making bodies as in GA and SGA and support the need to revisit the necessity of SGA. At Kern Co. GA, a few new delegates such as myself, really had an issue with these parallel bodies, and saw them as an unnecessary layer of administrative bureaucracy, as you do. Although this is a very important discussion, I am wondering if it's best continued on a different forum? I would very much like to see that, so we can discuss steps towards improving our decision making process in the future. Thanks for your thoughts, and YES to KISS! N Nassim Nouri 408-396-5722 nassim1nouri@gmail.com County Council Green Party of Santa Clara County ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Wanda Jean Lord <lordwandajean@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nassim,
For my part – I participate in this SGA system which I consider broken and unwieldy and ineffective – because it is what now exists. I know for our County Council the votes that I and our other delegate might make here take are vetted, and voted upon at the county level before we would vote here.
However – just because I might use this existing SGA system to vote (which in fact I haven’t up until the endorsement question that is now on the floor) – doesn’t mean I think it is a good one. I don’t.
Nor does it mean I am saying all previous votes, or any ones, taken under it are suspect. I am not.
I am simply saying the SGA process as I have experienced it is an unnecessary additional layer of bureaucracy – implemented in an unwieldy and inefficient way – using technology (list-serves) that was out of date at least a decade ago.
And I think we can and should do better – and simply create an online process that makes a GA a GA in all cases and on all questions and allows for direct and inclusive voting from that population as a whole on all issues – rather than instituting a 2nd layer of voting authority (SGAs). I am a fan of KISS (Keep It Simple (and Sane).
☺
Wanda
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Nassim Nouri <nassim1nouri@gmail.com <mailto:nassim1nouri@gmail.com>> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Date: Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
A few on this and other SGA vote forums have asserted that the SGA vote is not representative of the Greens in our counties. <>
Shouldn’t all SGA delegates bring votes to their Green members at monthly meetings for discussion and input? We certainly do in Santa Clara and I strongly recommend all delegates do as well.
It is OUR responsibility as DELEGATES to engage our county Green members to the best of our ability in order to participate in making decisions on behalf of our county’s Green members. This is our mandate.
Do SGAs on this forum concerned about representation, consider their past SGA votes unrepresentative?
If so, why participate in votes as delegates?
Nassim Nouri Santa Clara County
On Feb 18, 2018, at 7:02 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote:
Gloria, I couldn't agree more!! Such an action could loose us registered greens.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:50 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net <mailto:gloria@extragalactic.net>> wrote:
I wish I could agree with this, but as I see it, the real message is not going out to voters, it is going to the active core of our state folks. It would be a clear message of favoritism instead to pick one candidate. Greens can have a favorite, but the Party would not be helped by formalizing a favorite of “the establishment group”. Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Sean Bohac <sbohac@yahoo.com <mailto:sbohac@yahoo.com>> wrote:
If the SGA endorses a candidate it doesn't knock any other candidates off the ballot, its merely a mechanism for casual greens to get some guidance from the active party folks about who they endorse. The ultimate decision goes to those folks who vote, but for the vast majority of voters who dont do much homework its a way to guide Greens to a candidate who is likely the strongest and will be able to garner the percentages of the vote that help us maintain ballot status.
Sean Bohac (619) 218-3192 <tel:%28619%29%20218-3192>
"We live in capitalism. It's power seems inescapable... so did the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Any human power can be resisted and changed" - Ursula K. Le Guin
On Friday, February 16, 2018, 5:25:44 PM PST, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org <mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com <mailto:thomleavitt@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com <mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com <mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com <mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com <mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org <mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org <mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ <http://sfgreens.org/>
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co <http://www.venturacountygreenparty.co/> m greenpartyvc@gmail.com <mailto:greenpartyvc@gmail.com> instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.co <http://www.venturacountygreenparty.co/> m greenpartyvc@gmail.com <mailto:greenpartyvc@gmail.com> instagram: greenpartyvcc facebook group: Ventura Green Party facebook group: Ventura County Green Party
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do is to desist from harming them. -Dali Lama
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- <https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-> bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-vote s
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi- <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>-- 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>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:54:04PM -0800, Christopher Carlson wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this. "One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
James makes a good point. There are several theoretical reasons we might act as gatekeepers, but neither appears to apply this year: 1) when right wingers or other crazy people run as Greens, we should distance ourselves from them and ask voters not to support them, and 2) if we were close to losing our ballot status based on registration, which as Thomas explained, we're not. I'll be supporting endorsing all the Greens who make the ballot on March 9, unless I find out any of them fall into that first category. Having 3 candidates for Governor seems fine, since it's the only way we can be in 3 places at once! We've already gotten some very good press from one of the gubernatorial candidates in SF. I'll also point out that I don't really want to spend much energy or resources on state-level campaigns. We're not going to come close to breaking into the top two in any of the statewide races. At least in SF, we have much more potential impact on local politics and elections, and we have major local elections coming up in both June and November. I wouldn't want the GPCA to spend money on ballot access for statewide candidates; I think money would be better spent on literature and organizing. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
I'll put in my two sense. The two corporate parties are the ones that disempowered our voters by instituting Top Two, not us. They took our primary from us so we can either allow ourselves to continue to be marginalized by doing nothing or we can organize to fight back. Ann Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 16, 2018, at 2:54 PM, Christopher Carlson <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Erik, Anthony, Victoria, John-Marc,
Could any of you please address the following concern that James posted earlier? I would like to hear a rebuttal to this.
"One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot."
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:36 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: Erik, many of us have been working to help the candidates that had already stated intent to run, and have chosen to focus their efforts on those who have the best chances of success, and best represent green values. How do you think they got their signatures in??
On Feb 16, 2018 12:35 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt@gmail.com> wrote: I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards, Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: > One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. > >> On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: >> Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. >> >>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: >>> > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with >>> > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it >>> > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access >>> > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, >>> > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot. >>> >>> Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If >>> that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in >>> and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before >>> then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about >>> all the Green candidates running. >>> >>> JMC >>> -- >>> John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) >>> http://sfgreens.org/ >>> >>> -- >>> gpca-votes mailing list >>> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
What your comment makes clear is that next election we should hold this SGA primary much sooner. Our fundamental reality is that if we can focus on getting out the vote for only one Green in each race we will get more votes for that race. There is no mechanism that allows us to legally claim that we got 2% of the vote because two candidates got 1% each. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Leavitt Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 12:09 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates. Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office... If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks. It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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<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
Eric, First and foremost, if somehow, we are so organizationally incapable that we manage to fail to maintain our ballot status based on registration alone, we are seriously, seriously, seriously doing something very wrong. We should never have to depend on any one single candidate gaining over 2% of the vote to retain our ballot status. Not being able to maintain 1/3rd of 1% of the total registered voters would be dramatic and compelling evidence of catastrophic incompetence on a collective basis by us as "leaders" in the party. Secondly, as can be seen from the SOS web site below, and as I stated previously, in every election, we have 7 or 8 possible ballot lines through which we have the opportunity to gain that 2% of the statewide vote and retain our ballot status. Doing it via a candidate that runs for Controller or Insurance Commissioner is no less valid than doing it via whatever candidate runs for Governor. Again, if we are unable, in any of these races, to field a candidate capable of pulling 2% of the statewide vote, given our historic results, catastrophic incompetence would be a generous description of the situation. It would represent a historic reversal from the previous election, where down ballot, our female candidates (who tend to run a point or two better than our male candidates for equivalent offices, historically) for Treasurer and Comptroller pulled 6.5% and 5.6%, respectively, of the vote. To me, this makes it clear that meeting the 2% threshold is not a substantive and credible argument for endorsement of candidates. The decision needs to stand on its own merits as a tool for building the party. Finally, the current system of maintaining qualified status via statewide vote was established when all parties were able to ensure that a single designated candidate was present on the fall general election ballot. It is constitutionally suspect in an environment where minority parties have no influence over who runs on their ballot line, or how many candidates run and potentially split the vote. It is entirely reasonable to think that, at some future point, we might have half a dozen different candidates running for a single statewide office on the Green Party ticket. If each of them garnered under 2 percent of the vote, but they cumulatively garnered over 5% of the vote, and as a result we somehow lost our ballot status, I think we'd have a good argument to make that tying ballot status to the results of an individual candidate rather than our cumulative vote as a party for a particular office is constitutionally suspect.
From the CA S.O.S. site:
Maintaining Its Qualified Status - Once qualified, a political party maintains its qualified status by: - Retaining registrants representing at least 1/15 of 1 percent (0.067%) of the total state registration (Elections Code §§ 5101, 5153); *and* - Having one of its statewide candidates (running for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, or United States Senator) receive at least 2 percent of the entire vote of the state for that office at the June 3, 2014, gubernatorial primary election (Elections Code §§ 5100(a), 5151(b)); *or* - Retaining statewide registration equaling at least 0.33 percent of the total number of voters registered on the 154th day before the primary election or the 123rd day before the presidential general election. (Elections Code §§ 5100(b), 5151(c).) But, I do agree that, if we decide to pursue endorsements in statewide races, we need to do so much earlier, and make obtaining it (or failing to do so) part of the calculus for running at all. We need not wait for filing deadlines, we can make it clear to potential candidates that, if they wish to pursue consideration for endorsement, they need to be prepared to seek it much earlier in the process. If everyone considering a run for office has the chance to seek an endorsement, and the process is seen as open and not foreordained in favor of a particular candidate, and people have the opportunity to consider whether or not they want to continue pursuing a candidacy that lacks the endorsement of the state party prior to making the effort of actively running for months, and working to qualify for the ballot, then I think much of the argument over this would dissipate. But, again... NOTHING prevents people from ignoring the fact that the state party has made an endorsement, and running for Governor as a Green anyway, and even should the party itself gain enough organizational heft and strength to make our endorsement a meaningful advantage, it is very likely that, in doing so, we make the value of a Green label under a candidate's name on the June ballot that much higher in general, and thus continue to attract multiple candidates for high profile races like Governor. Plenty of Democrats and Republicans seek these offices, despite actively fighting for their state party's endorsement, and failing to obtain it. Rank and file members of each party know that all that a state party endorsement represents is the opinion of the people in the room at the time a vote was taken, and that said opinion can substantially differ from that held by the general membership at large. This is even more the case at this point for the CAGP, when the party as a whole lacks the ability to maintain regular contact with the great mass of registered voters, and their relationship to us, as organizers, is extremely tangential. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com> wrote:
What your comment makes clear is that next election we should hold this SGA primary much sooner.
Our fundamental reality is that if we can focus on getting out the vote for only one Green in each race we will get more votes for that race. There is no mechanism that allows us to legally claim that we got 2% of the vote because two candidates got 1% each.
Eric Brooks
SF, CA
*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Leavitt *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 12:09 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates.
Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office...
If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks.
It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki < chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
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
In the current legal and electoral matrix we are faced with, we would not win such a lawsuit. And wouldn’t foolishly running more than one candidate for statewide offices and then failing to get any statewide candidate past 2% be a very good example of such incompetence? It seems so to me. By the way, I very much support the Green Party returning to a decision making structure like the one you described previously in which local Greens reach consensus and then pass that upward to make decisions. Beginning this year, we should undertake efforts to return to a better decision making structure like that. Eric Brooks From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Leavitt Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:27 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Eric, First and foremost, if somehow, we are so organizationally incapable that we manage to fail to maintain our ballot status based on registration alone, we are seriously, seriously, seriously doing something very wrong. We should never have to depend on any one single candidate gaining over 2% of the vote to retain our ballot status. Not being able to maintain 1/3rd of 1% of the total registered voters would be dramatic and compelling evidence of catastrophic incompetence on a collective basis by us as "leaders" in the party. Secondly, as can be seen from the SOS web site below, and as I stated previously, in every election, we have 7 or 8 possible ballot lines through which we have the opportunity to gain that 2% of the statewide vote and retain our ballot status. Doing it via a candidate that runs for Controller or Insurance Commissioner is no less valid than doing it via whatever candidate runs for Governor. Again, if we are unable, in any of these races, to field a candidate capable of pulling 2% of the statewide vote, given our historic results, catastrophic incompetence would be a generous description of the situation. It would represent a historic reversal from the previous election, where down ballot, our female candidates (who tend to run a point or two better than our male candidates for equivalent offices, historically) for Treasurer and Comptroller pulled 6.5% and 5.6%, respectively, of the vote. To me, this makes it clear that meeting the 2% threshold is not a substantive and credible argument for endorsement of candidates. The decision needs to stand on its own merits as a tool for building the party. Finally, the current system of maintaining qualified status via statewide vote was established when all parties were able to ensure that a single designated candidate was present on the fall general election ballot. It is constitutionally suspect in an environment where minority parties have no influence over who runs on their ballot line, or how many candidates run and potentially split the vote. It is entirely reasonable to think that, at some future point, we might have half a dozen different candidates running for a single statewide office on the Green Party ticket. If each of them garnered under 2 percent of the vote, but they cumulatively garnered over 5% of the vote, and as a result we somehow lost our ballot status, I think we'd have a good argument to make that tying ballot status to the results of an individual candidate rather than our cumulative vote as a party for a particular office is constitutionally suspect. From the CA S.O.S. site: Maintaining Its Qualified Status · Once qualified, a political party maintains its qualified status by: · Retaining registrants representing at least 1/15 of 1 percent (0.067%) of the total state registration (Elections Code §§ 5101, 5153); and · Having one of its statewide candidates (running for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, or United States Senator) receive at least 2 percent of the entire vote of the state for that office at the June 3, 2014, gubernatorial primary election (Elections Code §§ 5100(a), 5151(b)); or · Retaining statewide registration equaling at least 0.33 percent of the total number of voters registered on the 154th day before the primary election or the 123rd day before the presidential general election. (Elections Code §§ 5100(b), 5151(c).) But, I do agree that, if we decide to pursue endorsements in statewide races, we need to do so much earlier, and make obtaining it (or failing to do so) part of the calculus for running at all. We need not wait for filing deadlines, we can make it clear to potential candidates that, if they wish to pursue consideration for endorsement, they need to be prepared to seek it much earlier in the process. If everyone considering a run for office has the chance to seek an endorsement, and the process is seen as open and not foreordained in favor of a particular candidate, and people have the opportunity to consider whether or not they want to continue pursuing a candidacy that lacks the endorsement of the state party prior to making the effort of actively running for months, and working to qualify for the ballot, then I think much of the argument over this would dissipate. But, again... NOTHING prevents people from ignoring the fact that the state party has made an endorsement, and running for Governor as a Green anyway, and even should the party itself gain enough organizational heft and strength to make our endorsement a meaningful advantage, it is very likely that, in doing so, we make the value of a Green label under a candidate's name on the June ballot that much higher in general, and thus continue to attract multiple candidates for high profile races like Governor. Plenty of Democrats and Republicans seek these offices, despite actively fighting for their state party's endorsement, and failing to obtain it. Rank and file members of each party know that all that a state party endorsement represents is the opinion of the people in the room at the time a vote was taken, and that said opinion can substantially differ from that held by the general membership at large. This is even more the case at this point for the CAGP, when the party as a whole lacks the ability to maintain regular contact with the great mass of registered voters, and their relationship to us, as organizers, is extremely tangential. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:53 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32@hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com>> wrote: What your comment makes clear is that next election we should hold this SGA primary much sooner. Our fundamental reality is that if we can focus on getting out the vote for only one Green in each race we will get more votes for that race. There is no mechanism that allows us to legally claim that we got 2% of the vote because two candidates got 1% each. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>] On Behalf Of Thomas Leavitt Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 12:09 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor I'm abstaining, but I'll point out that we're not going to have one candidate, we're going to have however many appear on the ballot. Further, whatever decision we make here will be functionally irrelevant to upwards of 95% of the voters casting a ballot for one of our candidates (or any of them), as they'll never hear about it. The "resources" that the state party can provide to any endorsed candidate are almost non-existent. City Council candidates in my town regularly raise upwards of $20,000 on an individual basis; that exceeds what I believe was our entire budget for the state last year, approaches our entire "aspirational" / Plan A budget for this year (based on what I recall seeing), and certainly exceeds whatever financial support we can provide to a candidate. It's unlikely that we'll even be able to afford anything as basic as sending a postcard listing our endorsements to every registered Green in the state; even if we could somehow manage that, said voters would still only amount to a small percentage of the total vote for our candidates. Along those lines, even spreading our endorsements via email and social media will still only reach a tiny percentage of even the registered Greens, let alone the vast mass of Democrats, No Party Preference voters, and others who might be inclined to vote for our candidates. Again, if we have candidates running for multiple statewide offices, any one of them could serve to get us over the 2% threshold. Historically, up and down the ballot, we've often run well above that, and it seems to me that we'd have an argument for having exceeded the threshold even if we had two candidates running on our party line, each of whom only gained about 1% of the vote, for any such office... If all that happens is that the endorsement process mirrors internal divisions otherwise present in our party, what exactly does it accomplish? Do we really want to effectively delegitimize particular candidates seeking to run for office within our party, and use the "spoiler" argument against our own candidates?!? When we had primaries, decisions about who should run were left up to registered Greens voting in our primary, except in extreme cases. Then we coalesced (generally) around whoever the voters picked, and moved on. It seems to me that the more folks running, and the broader the representation and point of view they provide, the BETTER OFF the party is, as that will draw MORE voters to us, and in turn, for races where we have less or only one candidate, lead to more votes for those folks. It might be argued that having a single candidate makes it easier to talk to the press about "our party's candidate", but isn't it a signal of strength that we could have multiple candidates running statewide campaigns? The Democrats aren't concerned about splitting their votes, why should we be? I just don't see what purpose this process serves; folks supporting an unendorsed candidate aren't going to quit doing so based on how the SGA votes, and all it is going to do is provoke a meta discussion about the process at the local level, and lead to rumors about power plays and backroom deals, etc. Regards, Thomas Leavitt On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ? On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto: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<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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Am I incorrect in my understanding that we do not need 2% in the Primary? Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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 -- 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
Gloria et al, The 2% requirement was changed after the TopTwo measure was passed. It’s more complicated now, as there are two methods for maintaining status in order to stay on the ballot as a party, mainly for Presidential elections. from the CA SoS website: "Maintaining Its Qualified Status Once qualified, a political party maintains its qualified status by: Retaining registrants representing at least 1/15 of 1 percent (0.067%) of the total state registration (Elections Code §§ 5101, 5153); and Having one of its statewide candidates (running for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, or United States Senator) receive at least 2 percent of the entire vote of the state for that office at the June 3, 2014, gubernatorial primary election (Elections Code §§ 5100(a), 5151(b)); or Retaining statewide registration equaling at least 0.33 percent of the total number of voters registered on the 154th day before the primary election or the 123rd day before the presidential general election. (Elections Code §§ 5100(b), 5151(c).) “ excerpted from this page at CA Sos site: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/political-party-qualificat... <http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/political-party-qualification/> FYI - as of Jan.2, 2018 there were 18,980,481 registered voters state-wide. 0.2% of that = 12,716 registrants needed, so not a problem for us. However, we would still need to get 2% of the actual voters in the June primary, which by the way, had a RECORD low turnout of only 25% in June 2014. If in June 2018, there is another 25% turnout, then 25% of reg voters is ~4.75M votes, and 2% of that = 94,900 votes needed for any ONE Green candidate. OR… 0.33% of registered voters = 62,635 registered Greens required. We appear to have 91,631 as of Jan.2, 2018, so we are probably OK. cheers, Bob
On Feb 18, 2018, at 12:05, Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
Am I incorrect in my understanding that we do not need 2% in the Primary? Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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 -- 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
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse other than petitioning your elected officials and exercising your constitutional rights. See: https://ssd.eff.org/ for solutions.
Gloria et al, The 2% requirement was changed after the TopTwo measure was passed. It’s more complicated now, as there are two methods for maintaining status in order to stay on the ballot as a party, mainly for Presidential elections. from the CA SoS website: "Maintaining Its Qualified Status * Once qualified, a political party maintains its qualified status by: * Retaining registrants representing at least 1/15 of 1 percent (0.067%) of the total state registration (Elections Code §§ 5101, 5153); *and* * Having one of its statewide candidates (running for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, or United States Senator) receive at least 2 percent of the entire vote of the state for that office at the June 3, 2014, gubernatorial primary election (Elections Code §§ 5100(a), 5151(b)); *or* * Retaining statewide registration equaling at least 0.33 percent of the total number of voters registered on the 154th day before the primary election or the 123rd day before the presidential general election. (Elections Code §§ 5100(b), 5151(c).) “ excerpted from this page at CA Sos site: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/political-parties/political-party-qualificat... FYI - as of Jan.2, 2018 there were 18,980,481 registered voters state-wide. 0.2% of that = *12,716 *registrants needed, so not a problem for us. However, we would still need to get 2% of the actual voters in the June primary, which by the way, had a RECORD low turnout of only 25% in June 2014. If in June 2018, there is another 25% turnout, then 25% of reg voters is ~4.75M votes, and 2% of that =*94,900 * votes needed for any ONE Green candidate. *OR…* 0.33% of registered voters =* 62,635 *registered Greens required. We appear to have 91,631 as of Jan.2, 2018, so we are probably OK. cheers, Bob
On Feb 18, 2018, at 12:05, Gloria Purcell <gloria@extragalactic.net <mailto:gloria@extragalactic.net>> wrote:
Am I incorrect in my understanding that we do not need 2% in the Primary? Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com <mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com <mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com <mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com <mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org <mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org <mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/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 -- 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 <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice, and certainly without probable cause. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse other than petitioning your elected officials and exercising your constitutional rights. See: https://ssd.eff.org/ for solutions.
Gloria, if we can keep our voter registration high enough we don't have to worry as much about the 2% mark, at least for now. This is why I think it's good that at least two candidates for governor are collaborating in hopes of reaching more people. By doing so, we can hope to increase the number of registered greens. Having more registered greens gives us better chances of future wins, and is not a violation of our decentralization value On Feb 18, 2018 12:36 PM, "Gloria Purcell" <gloria@extragalactic.net> wrote:
Am I incorrect in my understanding that we do not need 2% in the Primary? Gloria
On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Anthony Krzywicki <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
In it to win it is the point of getting 2% then, right? Doesn’t having one candidate give us a better opportunity to get that 2% ?
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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 -- 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
Declaring your candidacy “first” has nothing to do with being the candidate most likely to win. Our objective is to win not to have 3 candidates get 2%. The Green Party of California must identify a slate of candidates every election cycle that it is confident will win a Top Two primary. Otherwise we are continuing a cycle of stagnation and inaction that has proven itself useless in statewide electoral races. If other Green candidates want to use their candidacy to raise donations for charities or to recruit new members that is their porogitive. That is not the goal of a serious statewide electoral party. We need to win state seats with credible candidates that have integrity and track records of trustworthiness. Vote yes on the endorsement process. It is never to late to make progress and turn a political party away from failed strategies. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
We're not continuing a cycle of anything. This is the first time the candidate endorsement process has been held in such a non-strategic, haphazard way, and as an afterthought- ages later than it should have been implimented. At the Sacramento GA, Campaigns & Candidates Working Group had its opportunity to reveal an election strategy for this primary but did not. There is no endorsement process listed in this strategic plan: http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2017-06/strategic-plan "Identifying the best candidate" at this point is completely subjective and there is no standard set on which to base any type of measure for this. Declaring your candidacy “first” has nothing to do with being the candidate most likely to win. Our objective is to win not to have 3 candidates get 2%. The Green Party of California must identify a slate of candidates every election cycle that it is confident will win a Top Two primary. Otherwise we are continuing a cycle of stagnation and inaction that has proven itself useless in statewide electoral races. If other Green candidates want to use their candidacy to raise donations for charities or to recruit new members that is their porogitive. That is not the goal of a serious statewide electoral party. We need to win state seats with credible candidates that have integrity and track records of trustworthiness. Vote yes on the endorsement process. It is never to late to make progress and turn a political party away from failed strategies. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
Wanda, good question On Feb 16, 2018 3:01 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
We're not continuing a cycle of anything. This is the first time the candidate endorsement process has been held in such a non-strategic, haphazard way, and as an afterthought- ages later than it should have been implimented.
At the Sacramento GA, Campaigns & Candidates Working Group had its opportunity to reveal an election strategy for this primary but did not. There is no endorsement process listed in this strategic plan: http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2017-06/strategic-plan
"Identifying the best candidate" at this point is completely subjective and there is no standard set on which to base any type of measure for this.
Declaring your candidacy “first” has nothing to do with being the candidate most likely to win. Our objective is to win not to have 3 candidates get 2%. The Green Party of California must identify a slate of candidates every election cycle that it is confident will win a Top Two primary. Otherwise we are continuing a cycle of stagnation and inaction that has proven itself useless in statewide electoral races. If other Green candidates want to use their candidacy to raise donations for charities or to recruit new members that is their porogitive. That is not the goal of a serious statewide electoral party. We need to win state seats with credible candidates that have integrity and track records of trustworthiness. Vote yes on the endorsement process. It is never to late to make progress and turn a political party away from failed strategies.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
There is a standard to base the measure of identifying the best candidate for a given population – it is called a vote. From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> Reply-To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Date: Friday, February 16, 2018 at 3:01 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor We're not continuing a cycle of anything. This is the first time the candidate endorsement process has been held in such a non-strategic, haphazard way, and as an afterthought- ages later than it should have been implimented. At the Sacramento GA, Campaigns & Candidates Working Group had its opportunity to reveal an election strategy for this primary but did not. There is no endorsement process listed in this strategic plan: http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2017-06/strategic-plan "Identifying the best candidate" at this point is completely subjective and there is no standard set on which to base any type of measure for this. Declaring your candidacy “first” has nothing to do with being the candidate most likely to win. Our objective is to win not to have 3 candidates get 2%. The Green Party of California must identify a slate of candidates every election cycle that it is confident will win a Top Two primary. Otherwise we are continuing a cycle of stagnation and inaction that has proven itself useless in statewide electoral races. If other Green candidates want to use their candidacy to raise donations for charities or to recruit new members that is their porogitive. That is not the goal of a serious statewide electoral party. We need to win state seats with credible candidates that have integrity and track records of trustworthiness. Vote yes on the endorsement process. It is never to late to make progress and turn a political party away from failed strategies. On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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 -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903 cagreens.org -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
We really should be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story. Thank you, Lauren Mauricio Tulare County ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties. The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection. The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries. We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties. If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- *Erik Rydberg * *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* *erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903* cagreens.org
Good afternoon fellow Greens, We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body. Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar. I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace. I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind. I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over. We are all greens. Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council. I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum. God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote: We really should be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you, Lauren Mauricio Tulare County
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
-- 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
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates? How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal. This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot. This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles. Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people. On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Also to Chris. Your choice to step down as a delegate in order to make room for others is commendable. It is as sign of integrity, and should be an example others could learn from. On Feb 18, 2018 11:15 AM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
"Stop trying to pit greens against greens" "How is putting greens against each other good?" We are a political party. The electoral process by definition involves voting for single candidate, slates of candidate, rank ordering candidates, etc. -- this is how elections work. It is not "turning greens against greens". Political parties endorse candidates as part of the electoral process. -- Victoria Ashley Solano County On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:33 AM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Also to Chris. Your choice to step down as a delegate in order to make room for others is commendable. It is as sign of integrity, and should be an example others could learn from.
On Feb 18, 2018 11:15 AM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
The general public is voting on this endorsement?? Can you read what you wrote again, Victoria? This is not how elections work. On Feb 18, 2018 4:53 PM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
"Stop trying to pit greens against greens" "How is putting greens against each other good?"
We are a political party. The electoral process by definition involves voting for single candidate, slates of candidate, rank ordering candidates, etc. -- this is how elections work. It is not "turning greens against greens". Political parties endorse candidates as part of the electoral process.
-- Victoria Ashley Solano County
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:33 AM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Also to Chris. Your choice to step down as a delegate in order to make room for others is commendable. It is as sign of integrity, and should be an example others could learn from.
On Feb 18, 2018 11:15 AM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
A small group deciding who voters should choose is undemocratic. If it were open to all registered greens that would be different. This is centralization of power in the hands of party elites, which goes against our values. I also find it interesting that the candidates pushing for this proposal are the ones NOT working with the other candidates running for the same office, but running in opposition instead. On Feb 18, 2018 6:08 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
The general public is voting on this endorsement??
Can you read what you wrote again, Victoria? This is not how elections work. On Feb 18, 2018 4:53 PM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
"Stop trying to pit greens against greens" "How is putting greens against each other good?"
We are a political party. The electoral process by definition involves voting for single candidate, slates of candidate, rank ordering candidates, etc. -- this is how elections work. It is not "turning greens against greens". Political parties endorse candidates as part of the electoral process.
-- Victoria Ashley Solano County
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:33 AM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Also to Chris. Your choice to step down as a delegate in order to make room for others is commendable. It is as sign of integrity, and should be an example others could learn from.
On Feb 18, 2018 11:15 AM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia < jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote: > I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with > this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it > should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access > goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, > and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson*
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903>*
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win. Thank you, Lauren Mauricio ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates? How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal. This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot. This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles. Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people. On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote: Good afternoon fellow Greens, We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body. Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar. I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace. I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind. I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over. We are all greens. Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council. I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum. God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058<tel:(916)%20704-0058> On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties. The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection. The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries. We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties. If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com<mailto:lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com>> wrote: We really should be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story. Thank you, Lauren Mauricio Tulare County ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:(530)%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org<http://cagreens.org> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents." The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting. GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure. http://cagreens.org/ga http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903> *
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens. Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters. On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903> *
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
"The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic." There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this listserv are the people opposed to this proposal. I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could make a concrete difference in the world. I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has attended one can attest. Namaste. On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens.
Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903> *
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Thank you, Sadie. Onward to a better world! On Tuesday, February 20, 2018, Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
"The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic."
There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this listserv are the people opposed to this proposal.
I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could make a concrete difference in the world.
I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has attended one can attest.
Namaste.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens.
Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903> *
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Wait... all of a sudden having multiple candidates is a good thing? I thought Green Party of Sacramento members were the ones taking to social media and listserves claiming that my candidacy for Secretary of State was an attempt to “split the vote” and “running Greens against Greens”, etc. I recall Nicole Castor, James Clark calling me a “highjacker” along with Jacob Bloom in a FB Group called “Annoying Rats That Eat Holes in Erik Rydberg GPCA Spokesperson”. A couple months ago they said I was an inexperienced candidate compared to the long time establishment candidate Mike Feinstein. Now multiple candidates is a good thing and multiple candidates help build the party? Multiple candidates don’t help build the party. Good candidates help build the party. This endorsement process helps us indentify good candidates. If I were to get an endorsement from GPCA that would not make me an “establishment candidate.“ Surly a member of the Young Greens of the United States couldn’t be an establishment candidate over a “Co-Founder” of the Green Party of California? If you can’t garner support from Delegates appointed by County Councils in the amount of a 2/3rds vote. Your probably not a good candidate and the Green Party of California’s Delegates don’t have faith in you to win or to appropriately represent GPCA. Nobody can stop you from running... but you don’t get to run around saying whatever you want like the Green Party of California supports you. If we don’t create this process then racists and Trump supporters can run on the Green Party ballot and we’ll have no way to distance ourselves or voice our disapproval. Do we want Hillary/Trump supporters running on our ballot and everybody thinking we support them? On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 2:40 PM Dee See <artaed@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Sadie. Onward to a better world!
On Tuesday, February 20, 2018, Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
"The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic."
There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this listserv are the people opposed to this proposal.
I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could make a concrete difference in the world.
I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has attended one can attest.
Namaste.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens.
Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903> *
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- *Erik Rydberg * *Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson* *erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com>530-781-2903* cagreens.org
Having multiple candidates would increase our reach. 3 people can reach far more than one, for example. From feedback I'm receiving, having a small body select the candidates for our voters is seen as creating an "establishment candidate". This is a turn off for many constituents, and may lead to a decline in registered green voters. This may be an especially big issue for those who left the Dems over their super delegates not listening to voters. Any statewide endorsement of candidates should be inclusive to all registered greens to vote on, not a small group of "party elites". The voters, and our key values are our Roots, how can we say we practice Grass Roots democracy, when we don't let the roots have a say?? On Feb 20, 2018 12:58 PM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
"The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic."
There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this listserv are the people opposed to this proposal.
I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could make a concrete difference in the world.
I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has attended one can attest.
Namaste.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens.
Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903> *
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
What increases the GPCA reach is showing up as an electoral alternative to the other parties and we don’t do that by hiding from electoral decisions and functions. The reach and exposure of our party relies on all of us campaigning all the time FOR the party. Long before they became candidates many of those running today have been party building and campaigning for GPCA already. Why would they stop because as candidates, didn’t get an endorsement? I have faith in all our great candidates and I don’t believe any of them would do that. But if as some of you have suggested, not being endorsed leads to some candidates stepping back from serving the goals of GPCA, that clearly demonstrates their values and level of commitment to the party, right? I think it was previously suggested that GPCA endorse everyone!! ;-D THAT certainly does not give us credibility as a serious political organiation!
On Feb 20, 2018, at 1:11 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Having multiple candidates would increase our reach. 3 people can reach far more than one, for example. From feedback I'm receiving, having a small body select the candidates for our voters is seen as creating an "establishment candidate". This is a turn off for many constituents, and may lead to a decline in registered green voters. This may be an especially big issue for those who left the Dems over their super delegates not listening to voters. Any statewide endorsement of candidates should be inclusive to all registered greens to vote on, not a small group of "party elites". The voters, and our key values are our Roots, how can we say we practice Grass Roots democracy, when we don't let the roots have a say??
On Feb 20, 2018 12:58 PM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton@gmail.com <mailto:sadie.fulton@gmail.com>> wrote: "The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic."
There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this listserv are the people opposed to this proposal.
I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could make a concrete difference in the world.
I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has attended one can attest.
Namaste.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens.
Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com <mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/ga <http://cagreens.org/ga> http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates <http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates> On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com <mailto:lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com>> wrote: If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you, Lauren Mauricio
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org <mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote: Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <tel:(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com <mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com <mailto:lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com>> wrote: We really should be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you, Lauren Mauricio Tulare County
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com <mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com <mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com <mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com <mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org <mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org <mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ <http://sfgreens.org/>
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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 <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> -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com <mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <tel:(530)%20781-2903>
cagreens.org <http://cagreens.org/>
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes <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>
-- 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
I'm more concerned that creating an "establishment pick" would loose us voters in the long run than I am current Candidates ending their campaign. On Feb 20, 2018 3:07 PM, "Nassim Nouri" <nassim1nouri@gmail.com> wrote:
What increases the GPCA reach is showing up as an electoral alternative to the other parties and we don’t do that by hiding from electoral decisions and functions.
The reach and exposure of our party relies on all of us campaigning all the time FOR the party. Long before they became candidates many of those running today have been party building and campaigning for GPCA already. Why would they stop because as candidates, didn’t get an endorsement? I have faith in all our great candidates and I don’t believe any of them would do that.
But if as some of you have suggested, not being endorsed leads to some candidates stepping back from serving the goals of GPCA, that clearly demonstrates their values and level of commitment to the party, right?
I think it was previously suggested that GPCA endorse everyone!! ;-D THAT certainly does not give us credibility as a serious political organiation!
On Feb 20, 2018, at 1:11 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Having multiple candidates would increase our reach. 3 people can reach far more than one, for example. From feedback I'm receiving, having a small body select the candidates for our voters is seen as creating an "establishment candidate". This is a turn off for many constituents, and may lead to a decline in registered green voters. This may be an especially big issue for those who left the Dems over their super delegates not listening to voters. Any statewide endorsement of candidates should be inclusive to all registered greens to vote on, not a small group of "party elites". The voters, and our key values are our Roots, how can we say we practice Grass Roots democracy, when we don't let the roots have a say??
On Feb 20, 2018 12:58 PM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
"The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic."
There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this listserv are the people opposed to this proposal.
I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could make a concrete difference in the world.
I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has attended one can attest.
Namaste.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens.
Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you, Lauren Mauricio
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you, Lauren Mauricio Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903> *
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
No one has said that all candidates shouldnt run. All candidates are running. Therefore we will get 3 times the publicity whether we endore them or not. The fact that this top two system is in place makes running a strong endorsed candidate ever so important. I dont believe that there is a way to get everyone to vote on a candidate. That is why we have an SGA, we bring back the issues to our counties and make decisions from there. I sure hope that in the future we can start campaigns sooner than later.... is 6 months ago. I think a more important topic would be who needs to make such a motion, committee or countie to make this change? On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:11 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Having multiple candidates would increase our reach. 3 people can reach far more than one, for example. From feedback I'm receiving, having a small body select the candidates for our voters is seen as creating an "establishment candidate". This is a turn off for many constituents, and may lead to a decline in registered green voters. This may be an especially big issue for those who left the Dems over their super delegates not listening to voters. Any statewide endorsement of candidates should be inclusive to all registered greens to vote on, not a small group of "party elites". The voters, and our key values are our Roots, how can we say we practice Grass Roots democracy, when we don't let the roots have a say??
On Feb 20, 2018 12:58 PM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
"The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic."
There's no evidence of this so-called fact. Nobody has been "lobbying the SGAs". The only people regularly trying to sway the discussion on this listserv are the people opposed to this proposal.
I would urge Greens not to get bogged down in this endless circular arguing. We need to focus our discussions instead on how we can build our movement and party and how best to take advantage of the truly historic opportunity ahead of us to become a serious campaigning force that could make a concrete difference in the world.
I'm looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible out on the road at Josh's campaign stops - which are actual campaign events, aimed at the general public, not merely at SGA delegates, as everyone who has attended one can attest.
Namaste.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens.
Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903> *
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- 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
I don't believe our little Party has the resources to hold our own primary of all registered Greens. We have been put into a bind not of our own making because of Top Two. And we are obviously not in the same situation of those representing the two party duopoly. We have neither their money nor their power. I support holding a vote for endorsement based on active Greens (the SGA) under these less than ideal circumstances so we can focus our energies. If we are serious about reinstating primaries and protecting the rights of registered Greens, there is something we can do now. Counties can get involved in the effort to put an initiative on the ballot to repeal Top Two. We only have a little over a month to gather signatures. Please help with the petitioning effort! https://www.stoptop2.com/ Contact the campaign and they will send petitions to you. Ann Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 12:16 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens.
Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates
On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote: If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you, Lauren Mauricio
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote: Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote: We really should be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you, Lauren Mauricio Tulare County
From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County
On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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 -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com 530-781-2903
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
No party has a primary in California due to top two. It doesn't just effect us. That argument does not validate creating an establishment pick, without letting our voters decide. We should instead be focusing on how to get more registered voters, thus improving our chances in the future. This process does not help with gaining more registered greens, and instead waists valuable time and resources. Instead of campaigning outside of our inner circle, this causes candidates to compete with each other in an effort to get the inner circles support. Several candidates have already stated that they don't even want the endorsement because they would rather not participate in such a divisive process. Then there is the fact that this is a centralization of power in the hands of a few. That means this violates our key values of both Grass Roots democracy, and decentralization. I fear this will hurt the party in the long run. On Feb 20, 2018 1:29 PM, "Ann Menasche" <aemenasche@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't believe our little Party has the resources to hold our own primary of all registered Greens. We have been put into a bind not of our own making because of Top Two. And we are obviously not in the same situation of those representing the two party duopoly. We have neither their money nor their power.
I support holding a vote for endorsement based on active Greens (the SGA) under these less than ideal circumstances so we can focus our energies.
If we are serious about reinstating primaries and protecting the rights of registered Greens, there is something we can do now.
Counties can get involved in the effort to put an initiative on the ballot to repeal Top Two. We only have a little over a month to gather signatures.
Please help with the petitioning effort! https://www.stoptop2.com/ Contact the campaign and they will send petitions to you. Ann
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 12:16 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens.
Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters.
On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents."
The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting.
GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure.
http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy
Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates?
How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal.
This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot.
This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles.
Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people.
On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org> wrote:
Good afternoon fellow Greens,
We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body.
Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar.
I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace.
I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind.
I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over.
We are all greens.
Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council.
I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum.
God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058 <(916)%20704-0058>
On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> wrote:
Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties.
The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection.
The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries.
We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties.
If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from.
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio < lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com> wrote:
We really *should* be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story.
Thank you,
Lauren Mauricio
Tulare County
------------------------------ *From:* gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> *Sent:* Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM
*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes *Subject:* Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor
Anthony & Others,
I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor.
If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win.
I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do.
There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values.
I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon.
-Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that?
Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot.
On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running.
JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-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
--
*Erik Rydberg *
*Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson *
*erikrydberg34@gmail.com <erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903 <(530)%20781-2903> *
cagreens.org
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
I agree with James' arguments regarding this issue. I think it does smack of elitism to have a small cadre of Greens, many of whom happen to be on the coordinating committee who voted in favor of this decision without prior notice to the party-at-large or even the SGA, now decide who gets endorsed and who does not. It would have made more sense for the SGA to vote on whether or not to vote on endorsing candidates vs. allowing the voters to decide, than for the coordinating committee to decide that the SGA vote on which candidates to endorse. I have already said I believe it is a very divisive process and agree with James that it mirrors some of the undemocratic process in which the Democratic Party has engaged. These kinds of decisions that allow for more centralization by the few and less participatory democracy by the many are not in line with Green values. On 2/20/2018 1:39 PM, james clark wrote: No party has a primary in California due to top two. It doesn't just effect us. That argument does not validate creating an establishment pick, without letting our voters decide. We should instead be focusing on how to get more registered voters, thus improving our chances in the future. This process does not help with gaining more registered greens, and instead waists valuable time and resources. Instead of campaigning outside of our inner circle, this causes candidates to compete with each other in an effort to get the inner circles support. Several candidates have already stated that they don't even want the endorsement because they would rather not participate in such a divisive process. Then there is the fact that this is a centralization of power in the hands of a few. That means this violates our key values of both Grass Roots democracy, and decentralization. I fear this will hurt the party in the long run. On Feb 20, 2018 1:29 PM, "Ann Menasche" <aemenasche@gmail.com<mailto:aemenasche@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't believe our little Party has the resources to hold our own primary of all registered Greens. We have been put into a bind not of our own making because of Top Two. And we are obviously not in the same situation of those representing the two party duopoly. We have neither their money nor their power. I support holding a vote for endorsement based on active Greens (the SGA) under these less than ideal circumstances so we can focus our energies. If we are serious about reinstating primaries and protecting the rights of registered Greens, there is something we can do now. Counties can get involved in the effort to put an initiative on the ballot to repeal Top Two. We only have a little over a month to gather signatures. Please help with the petitioning effort! https://www.stoptop2.com/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoptop2.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=y2JN3Gos47W%2BdAVK1z%2BYLGCwbRp7cMPVBjWSyv8sCLw%3D&reserved=0> Contact the campaign and they will send petitions to you. Ann Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2018, at 12:16 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: The fact that only the candidates who had prior knowledge of this proposal we're the only ones lobbying the SGA s problematic. Also having delegates tell voters who to vote for us undemocratic and takes voice away from registered greens. Should we work on an inclusive process for the next election cycle, yes. That process should not be where a small group of delegates decides the candidates, but should be a vote by registered voters. On Feb 20, 2018 10:03 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> wrote: SGA delegates are appointed/elected by active County Councils. The County Councils aim to represent the county Greens as "constituents." The general Green population of a county does not have the power to replace the GA/SGA delegates, except in the case of a General Meeting. GA/SGA delegates are the primary decision-making body of the GPCA, so are voting on internal structure. http://cagreens.org/ga<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcagreens.org%2Fga&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=oqAT6lCyvpCmS%2FgM99Uvg2r1fTklzD9gRizuA%2FaJbJw%3D&reserved=0> http://cagreens.org/sga/2017-2018/delegates<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcagreens.org%2Fsga%2F2017-2018%2Fdelegates&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=wx1MFjAkTm394DhmTdPcxCfQNjcYgtHgjQ6IqWzyK%2FY%3D&reserved=0> On Feb 20, 2018 9:30 AM, "Lauren Mauricio" <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com<mailto:lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com>> wrote: If the SGA is supposed to represent the Greens in their county, then it is their job to connect with Greens on the local level (their "constituents" so to speak). So campaigning to the SGA is an excellent strategy for reaching more Greens across the state. Unless you think the SGA is not doing their job and are disconnected from or not listening to the Greens in their county. In which case, the Greens in their county have the power to replace them. But it makes no sense to fault someone for running a smart campaign. In fact, we should be encouraging it if we want to win. Thank you, Lauren Mauricio ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 11:15 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Resignation of SGA Delegacy Erik rydberg, what is forward thinking about violating the key value of decentralization? Why are fighting so hard for motion that would centralize power, and essentially be no better than the Democrats and their super delegates? How is putting greens against each other good? Most candidates I've spoken to personally are working together to support each other's campaign, yet those in favor of this proposal are running against those greens, including lobbying the SGA prior to this proposal. This has been happening while other candidates that had no idea such a proposal would be brought forth at the last minute. As such, they were campaigning outside of the delegates circle to aquire the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot. This is yet another problematic issue. Those who lobbied the SGA did so knowing about this proposal, and focused on winning over the delegates. Those who didn't, went and recruited people to sign their petitions from outside of the circle. That means that a vote by delegates would be unfairly influenced by those who new ahead of time about this proposal, but would not acknowledge the work growing the party other candidates put forth, since they were actually campaigning outside of our inner circles. Stop trying to pit greens against greens, we gain more by working as a team and supporting each candidate in their efforts to reach new people. On Feb 18, 2018 6:13 AM, "Chris" <chris@bestofbroadway.org<mailto:chris@bestofbroadway.org>> wrote: Good afternoon fellow Greens, We are presently meeting at Grant High School in Sacramento. I am posting this notification of my resignation as a delegate to the SGA body. Sacramento County has a single vacancy for a FIFTH SGA delegate. At this meeting, there are two applicants for that role. In order to accommodate both persons, I have waived my SGA delegacy. Our new delegates are Randy Hicks and in my former position, Sid Akbar. I will be remaining as an alternate, and unsubscribe my myself from all discussions for the upcoming votes, having said my peace. I ask for your support on behalf of Veronika Fimbres in your ranked choice decisions. It is my wish to see all candidates receive a 2/3 majority endorsement. There is confusion as to whether this vote is to endorse or select candidates. We need to remember the green pillar of grassroots democracy and resist the urge to influence the state's mind. I have confirmed between Josh, Veronika, and myself that each of our campaigns will persist if an endorsement is not granted, and there is no foundation for conflict on this issue. I request of the GPCA councils and coordinating committee a pledge not to intervene in the campaigns of unendorsed candidates until June 6th, after the state primary is over. We are all greens. Thank you all for your time. I remain a registered Green candidate for Governor and endorse Randy Hicks for Coordinating Committee/Council. I wish Sid all the best and know his input will be well heard by this forum. God bless, Christopher Carlson 916.704.0058<tel:%28916%29%20704-0058> On Feb 17, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Erik <erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com>> wrote: Another huge lack of forward thinking being put forth by people opposing this new process of endorsement is that we have smaller corporate-free parties wanting our endorsements and even considering running their candidates within our party to focus progressive power and limiting the fracturing of the progressive vote. We need to form an Independent 3rd Party Coalition with other Socialist Parties. The Green Party is the only Socialist party big enough to run candidates in almost every state. Our allies in other parties need our structure and we need their Numbers and candidates. I’m sure there is some puritanical secterian argument on why we should continue to do nothing about that as well. I’m tired of watching the Green Party do nothing or very little. We need this endorsement process for the future and now so we can bring Independents and corporate-free Socialist Parties to the table and exponential grow our membership and candidate selection. The Maine Green-Independent Party hyphenated their name while simultaneously opening up those Ballot Access and they are now running the most candidates of any state party with 38 compared to GPCA’s 18. They are also the first State Green Party in American history being formed in 1984. They clearly have some wisdom that we have yet to realize considering that our doors are closed to Independents and GPCA has Closed Primaries. We need a early Independent 3rd Party Primary System that includes Socialist Parties and Corporate-Free Independents to focus Power on corporate-free Parties. If we fail to do this another 3rd Party will like Progressive Independent Party or Movement for A People’s Party and we will have missed a golden opportunity that we may never recover from. On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 2:14 PM Lauren Mauricio <lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com<mailto:lauren_mauricio@hotmail.com>> wrote: We really should be "pandering" to Berniecrats, though. I was a Berniecrat. I voted for Jill Stein because someone shared a link in Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash (Facebook group) to a website that showed how her platform matched Bernie Sanders' by 99%. So I voted Green and never looked back. If whoever-that-Green-was hadn't pandered to me, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton and I would still be a begrudged Democrat to this day. I know a lot of people who share the same story. Thank you, Lauren Mauricio Tulare County ________________________________ From: gpca-votes <gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org>> on behalf of Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:26 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Anthony & Others, I agree that this process should have been started at least six months ago. At this point, candidates and their teams have already done the work to get on the ballot and it is likely there will be more than one Green candidate for the offices of SOS & Governor. If we're not in it to win it, what is the point? There is a point, actually. We will benefit from having any of the statewide candidates reaching 2%, thus securing ballot access. In addition, Green Party benefits by campaigning our platform, Key Values and the type of electoral reforms which are necessary to empower alternate parties. I do not feel it is useful to delude ourselves into thinking that we are in fact "in it to win it," because until these reforms are accomplished, we are severely disadvantaged in realistically competing to win. I also do not feel it is useful to put so much weight on pandering to so-called "berniecrats," as it dilutes our values in specific ways which compromises what the party actually stands for. Of course such pandering has its merit in reaching registration goals, but for a race like this, we should be careful in pretending we share more in common with that core than we really do. There has to be a party which stands firmly against war, firmly supports environmental protections, among other issues and Sanders does not reflect these values in his actions. There are already "progressive" democrats who will woo voters with compromised ideals and so rather than GP moving to the right, we stand firm, campaign and demonstrate our values to a growing population of individuals who agree, and keep our stances so that we may secure a place for them when they realize the duopoly does not serve their interests and that these voters no longer wish to compromise their values. I will vote against the SGA proposal to endorse candidates at this point because it was brought in too late, serves little purpose and is proposed without a strategy which delegates could examine and decide upon. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County On Feb 16, 2018 7:52 AM, "Anthony Krzywicki" <chefkrzywicki@gmail.com<mailto:chefkrzywicki@gmail.com>> wrote: Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsfgreens.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=IRS7LoYZQE%2FdvOj8F8YTJjUAClv5jaderxtJuQ52q9M%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=RWozfxcP2X7yJ3ueail54gQ76TGb10wm1nZ%2FPdEDmrw%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=RWozfxcP2X7yJ3ueail54gQ76TGb10wm1nZ%2FPdEDmrw%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=RWozfxcP2X7yJ3ueail54gQ76TGb10wm1nZ%2FPdEDmrw%3D&reserved=0> -- Anthony J. Krzywicki, Co-coordinator GROW- Green Party California Co-coordinator Ventura County Green Party County Council www.venturacountygreenparty.com<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.venturacountygreenparty.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=U86xqO80qjgPS%2Fi8tjEGlH1X%2FD2cN8yV87%2BcZyDMcH8%3D&reserved=0> 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://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=RWozfxcP2X7yJ3ueail54gQ76TGb10wm1nZ%2FPdEDmrw%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=RWozfxcP2X7yJ3ueail54gQ76TGb10wm1nZ%2FPdEDmrw%3D&reserved=0> -- Erik Rydberg Green Party of California(GPCA) Spokesperson erikrydberg34@gmail.com<mailto:erikrydberg34@gmail.com> 530-781-2903<tel:%28530%29%20781-2903> [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0BwoNOQ4fkz_VOXJOSHI4UTUxU0k&r...] cagreens.org<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcagreens.org&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=iGpePx57Kx%2F4GYxL4UAbW%2FFcKgwcCMn3kZ%2FycV5muxo%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=RWozfxcP2X7yJ3ueail54gQ76TGb10wm1nZ%2FPdEDmrw%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=RWozfxcP2X7yJ3ueail54gQ76TGb10wm1nZ%2FPdEDmrw%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403062461&sdata=RWozfxcP2X7yJ3ueail54gQ76TGb10wm1nZ%2FPdEDmrw%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403218707&sdata=EkpHSBZh1RoQKCJiaKNvitO6a3TDKBHgX2C32OYIHZU%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403218707&sdata=EkpHSBZh1RoQKCJiaKNvitO6a3TDKBHgX2C32OYIHZU%3D&reserved=0> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdced838e93ee42a3901508d578aa9501%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636547596403218707&sdata=EkpHSBZh1RoQKCJiaKNvitO6a3TDKBHgX2C32OYIHZU%3D&reserved=0>
That’s the whole point of holding an internal SGA primary for statewide offices; so that we run only one candidate in each race and don’t split our votes. Eric Brooks SF, CA From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Krzywicki Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 7:03 AM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> Subject: Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 145: GPCA endorsement for Governor Another major concern is breaking up our parties voting base. We need to all get behind someone and that someone hopefully will reach out and get votes from independents, progressives and possibly bernicrats. Otherwise were not in itvto win it, so then whats the point? We have a such a small percentage of green voters to make a win, why should we split that? Also i beliwve that this process should be started 6 months ago, so we could already be backing a unified candidate. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:41 PM james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com<mailto:faygodrinkit@gmail.com>> wrote: One major concern is that this process would take power out of the voters hands to decide which candidate best represents their values. It seems to much the DNC and their delegates picking who people get to vote for. Not to mention at several candidates already have their names on the ballot. On Feb 15, 2018 11:14 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01@gmail.com<mailto:victronix01@gmail.com>> wrote: Since the vote doesn't start until late March, that would give some time to send out a list of all the GP candidates on the Inform List. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, John-Marc Chandonia <jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:25:47PM -0800, james clark wrote:
I feel it is not in the best interests of the party to follow through with this ill timed endorsement process. If we were to perform such a process it should have been done prior to candidates reaching their ballot access goals. To do so at this juncture will only create animosity and division, and will not effect candidates placement on the ballot.
Don't they have until March 9 to raise funds for the ballot? If that's the case, we should know by the time the SGA votes who is in and who is out. I agree that we should not make an endorsement before then, because we haven't had any process for informing Greens about all the Green candidates running. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org<mailto:jmc@sfgreens.org>) http://sfgreens.org/ -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- 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
Hi, Please removed me from this email thread. Thank you On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:12 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 #145 Ranked Choice Vote: *GPCA endorsement for Governor* Number of Seats: 1 Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
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
-- Respectfully, Adia Williams (323)239-2761 adiawill@gmail.com
participants (26)
-
Adia Williams -
Ann Menasche -
Anthony Krzywicki -
Bob Marsh -
Bob Marsh -
C. A. B. -
Chris -
Christopher Carlson
-
Dee See -
Eric Brooks -
Erik -
Gary -
Genevieve Marcus -
Gloria Purcell -
GPCA Votes -
james clark -
Jeff Lebow -
John-Marc Chandonia -
Lauren Mauricio -
Nassim Nouri -
Nicole Castor -
Sadie Fulton -
Sean Bohac -
Thomas Leavitt -
Victoria Ashley -
Wanda Jean Lord