Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates
I would support the friendly amendment to add "and supports the 10 key values" to the proposal. While I agree with Nicole about the allocation of time, I also believe that building a coalition of non corporate party's and independent candidates can help us grow into a more formidable force. It would also help our candidates gain support in the future. On the international level, these coalitions we're essential to greens taking office. On Feb 22, 2018 12:01 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote: Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether or not an endorsement is appropriate. Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out. On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
I have an example: Bernie Sanders
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc.
Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.
On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide.
On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote:
Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates* Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
*Background*
The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.
Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.
Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow “sectarian” view of how change happens.
Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA Endorsement Policy.
*Proposal*
That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows:
That the policy be amended from its current text:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2)
2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election candidates who are not Green Party members.
To read as follow:
GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS
2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that accepts corporate campaign contributions.
Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green Party of Yolo County.
Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations
*Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>*
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
However I would not support endorsing any Democrats, or Republicans. On Feb 22, 2018 12:45 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would support the friendly amendment to add "and supports the 10 key values" to the proposal. While I agree with Nicole about the allocation of time, I also believe that building a coalition of non corporate party's and independent candidates can help us grow into a more formidable force. It would also help our candidates gain support in the future. On the international level, these coalitions we're essential to greens taking office.
On Feb 22, 2018 12:01 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether or not an endorsement is appropriate.
Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out. On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
I have an example: Bernie Sanders
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc.
Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.
On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be presented to registered voters to decide.
On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>* > > Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: > > Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 > Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements > for General Election Candidates* > Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, > Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck > Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 > Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 > Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time > > *Background* > > The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing > candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money: the > GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on > endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name > in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, > even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the Peace and > Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state and > federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom > candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party > Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate > running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between > good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate > money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system. > The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not > prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party > is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of > grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the > pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble > party-building efforts in California. > > Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts > to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party > system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we > will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse > candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party > affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the > ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied > organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get > an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not > be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public > perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being > marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t > win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid > marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label > “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary > folks in the nation and certainly in California. > > Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and > even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to > like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We > need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to > switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. > People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures > make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” > for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like > we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow > “sectarian” view of how change happens. > > Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA > Endorsement Policy. > > *Proposal* > > That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: > > That the policy be amended from its current text: > > GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved by > the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) > > 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election > candidates who are not Green Party members. > > To read as follow: > > GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS > > 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept > corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that > accepts corporate campaign contributions. > > Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the Green > Party of Yolo County. > > Full details will be available at: http://www.sjcgreens.org/s > ga_vote_bylaw_interpretations > > *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>* > > -- > gpca-votes mailing list > gpca-votes@sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes > > -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
Indeed. It should be explicit that helping build a party with a vile anti human track record is against the 10KV... :) On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 12:52 james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
However I would not support endorsing any Democrats, or Republicans.
On Feb 22, 2018 12:45 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
I would support the friendly amendment to add "and supports the 10 key values" to the proposal. While I agree with Nicole about the allocation of time, I also believe that building a coalition of non corporate party's and independent candidates can help us grow into a more formidable force. It would also help our candidates gain support in the future. On the international level, these coalitions we're essential to greens taking office.
On Feb 22, 2018 12:01 PM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
Party resources also include the time and effort which would be necessary for committees and working groups to execute a process to determine whether or not an endorsement is appropriate.
Seeing how, in this cycle, CCWG failed to identify two Greens running for Governor, it would seem our resources are already spread thin and we should, instead, turn our focus inward before branching out. On Feb 22, 2018 10:09 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
An endorsement doesn't have to imply lots of resources. I think that's part of the disagreement here. For me an endorsement is just a show of support, not an implication of money or volunteer hours to follow.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:07 Sadie Fulton <sadie.fulton@gmail.com> wrote:
I have an example: Bernie Sanders
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 10:06 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva@gmail.com> wrote:
I cannot recall any examples of politicians we have railed against for putting party over principles. I do not think this is a major concern in our struggles for political reforms, etc.
Our main objective within the internal party structure, is to promote the Green Party through our pillars and values, not to exhaust resources helping others who may or may not help us in return. On Feb 22, 2018 9:56 AM, "Jeff Lebow" <jlebow@socal.rr.com> wrote:
I’m for endorsing candidates that share Green values. We rail against politicians that put party over principles. We should not do the same.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 20, 2018, at 2:00 PM, james clark <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
Missed the "part of a party that excepts corporate donations" part. Lol.
On Feb 20, 2018 1:59 PM, "james clark" <faygodrinkit@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would be able to support this only if it included restrictions > against endorsing Democrats and Republicans, and all endorsements be > presented to registered voters to decide. > > On Feb 15, 2018 12:44 PM, "GPCA Votes" <gpca.votes@gmail.com> wrote: > >> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >> <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>* >> >> Discussion has begun for the following GPCA SGA ranked choice vote: >> >> Ranked Choice Vote ID #155 >> Ranked Choice Vote *Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA >> Endorsements for General Election Candidates* >> Ranked Choice Vote Administrators: Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, >> Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbeck >> Discussion 02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018 >> Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018 >> Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time >> >> *Background* >> >> The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from >> endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate >> money: the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name >> on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party >> name in the public eye. The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good >> candidates, even in races where we have no candidate. For instance, the >> Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in >> state and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace >> and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with >> No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no >> candidate running in the race. The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate >> between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no >> corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party >> system. The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are >> not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state >> party is; in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face >> of grassroots interest. The current endorsement policy was promulgated in >> the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble >> party-building efforts in California. >> >> Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts >> to implement Proportional Representation so that we can have a multi-party >> system and not a two-party system. By expanding our endorsement options, we >> will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions and will endorse >> candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party >> affiliations. As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the >> ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party or allied >> organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get >> an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not >> be the best candidate. Moreover, given that there are many public >> perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being >> marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t >> win,” the endorsement area is one we can control. We can avoid >> marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label >> “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary >> folks in the nation and certainly in California. >> >> Furthermore, it is common advice in social media, for example (and >> even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to >> like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We >> need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to >> switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude. >> People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures >> make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” >> for all people who are aligned with our values and stances. It looks like >> we want to remain a small, exclusive “third” party with a narrow >> “sectarian” view of how change happens. >> >> Accordingly, we recommend the following changes to the GPCA >> Endorsement Policy. >> >> *Proposal* >> >> That the current GPCA Endorsement Policy be amended as follows: >> >> That the policy be amended from its current text: >> >> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR GENERAL ELECTIONS (approved >> by the GPCA General Assembly, June 25, 2006, 43-6-2) >> >> 2. The GPCA shall not make any endorsements of General Election >> candidates who are not Green Party members. >> >> To read as follow: >> >> GPCA CANDIDATE ENDORSEMENT POLICY FOR ELECTIONS >> >> 2. The GPCA shall not make endorsements of candidates who accept >> corporate campaign contributions or who belong to any political party that >> accepts corporate campaign contributions. >> >> Sponsors: This proposal has been endorsed and sponsored by the >> Green Party of Yolo County. >> >> Full details will be available at: >> http://www.sjcgreens.org/sga_vote_bylaw_interpretations >> >> *Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >> <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>* >> >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes@sfgreens.org >> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes >> >> -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
-- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
participants (2)
-
james clark -
Sadie Fulton