Viability is a topic of discussion on the Political Chairs listserve. I am thinking about collecting articles like the one below, editing them and posting to the Iowa Topics listserve. What do you think ? Original memo: The way I see it, the Sierra Club's "viability" policy is not automatically based upon what party someone comes from, but rather on the quality of the campaign they are running. A candidate with little money, no full time paid campaign manager, and few volunteers is just not viable by any measure. But the purpose of our viability criterion is based upon a few philosphical assumptions about the Club's political program: 1) While the Sierra Club's endorsement and involvement in a campaign can provide the margin of victory in a close race between two viable candidates, it cannot catapult a non-viable candidate into viable status. 2) Only candidates can make their campaigns viable or not. 3) The Sierra Club wants to been seen as a player in political races and enhance the value of our endorsement. If we endorse a lot of losing candidates, the perceived value of our endorsement is diminished. We need to maintain a respectable won/loss record with our endorsments. 4) We need to maintain good relations with friendly office holders. Pissing off a relatively good incumbent who is sure to win re-election by snubbing him in favor of a Green party candidate does not help our lobbying efforts, and makes the Club look foolish. There are a couple strategies I have used to finesse this issue: 1) I always try to give Green party candidates interviews and due process even if they are not running viable campaigns and have no chance of winning. This way we show that we care and are listening, and do not unnessesarily piss anyone off. It allows us to explain our process better and also ask them tough questions about the viability of their campaign compared to their challengers, all while maintiaining mutual respect. 2) On several occaisions I have chosen to recommend that we give out dual endorsements as a way to finesse the issue. Based upon the little I know about the Colorado endorsements mentioned below, I think I would have recommended dual endorsments in some of those races. If the Club is going to change or modify its political endorsement process, I would like to see us give consideration to the "traffic light" model that NARAL often uses. Rather than an "endorsement", they give Green, Yellow, and Red lights to all candidates. Green if they are good, Yellow if only so-so, and Red if they are bad. Basically anyone who is good enough on our issues can get a green light regardless of viability. We would end up with a lot of multiple green lights in Democratic primaries, and some Democrat vs Republican contests also. Green party members could more easilty get green lights. But it would dramatically simplify our process, reduce conflicts, and make it easier for people to understand. The disadvantage is that it would reduce our ability to split hairs and make sole endorsments for candidates that are slightly better then others, and thereby decrease our potential clout in these elections (especially Democratic primaries). We would be relegated to trying to make a difference only in races where there was definitely a clear difference between candidates. But this might not be a bad thing overall. Adam Zielinski ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Adam Zielinski 1413 SE Madison St. Portland, OR 97214 P: 503-230-0381 M: 503-799-6908 [log in to unmask] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT to [log in to unmask]