[candidate-development] [Locals] Link to the Minority Opinion

[Merelice]

Greetings,

Is it just coincidence or is it partisan favoritism toward McKinney
that both resolutions suggested below leave her in the mix? If all the
candidates need to fulfill certain rules as interpreted by the
minority opinion in order to be valid candidates, then only Mesplay
and Swift should be defined as "candidates" (solution 1) or be listed
on a new ballot (solution 2) for a new election (at whose expense and
at what timing, given it would have to be approved by the State
Committee and the Secretary of State's office?).

Instead, these resolutions are changing the rules long after the
ballot deadline and well after the primary, which voters and the
office of the Secretary of State would have good reason to challenge.
Solution 2 is especially insulting to the nearly 40% of voters who
would learn that their vote was being tossed out, and that includes me
(and, no, I did not vote for Nader, the main target). Further, it
would be seen as a ballot being manipulated by party insiders to
benefit a select candidate, hardly appropriate for a party that claims
to be inclusive and transparent.

At the end of the State Committee meeting -- even though the straw
poll showed a 17 to 3 opposition to the minority interpretation --
there was a hasty effort to come up with a proposal that might reach
consensus. Neither of the ideas below follows up on that effort.

More to the point, there is no agreement that a problem exists that
needs resolution. First step is to get agreement on that. Otherwise,
these could be seen simply as two resolutions looking for a problem.

Merelice


On 3/7/08, Jamie O'Keefe <jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org> wrote:
.......
>
>  Resolutions:
>
>  "A call was put out for anyone interested and seeking resolutions to
>  the delegate apportionment issues not covered in the present delegate
>  selection plan - unforeseen areas.  A group of four people answered
>  that call -
>
>  They came up with two proposals:
>
>  1) That we define "candidates" to mean those presently seeking the
>  nomination of the Green Party for President, in which case the only
>  remaining language change that they believed was needed was: that
>  write-ins eligible for delegates would have to be contacted to agree
>  to be seeking the nomination before they were assigned delegates.
>
>  2) That since we can get the lists of everyone who voted 'J' in the
>  Primary, that we get those lists and send out a new ballot configured
>  like the other ballots (so would include 'no preference' and space for
>  write-ins) with Mesplay, Swift, and McKinney (and possibly Johnson) on
>  it.  They believe the plan would still need an additional change, that
>  delegates were not bound to candidates who were not at the convention
>  (related to their choices about participating in the nomination
>  process, not because they were sick or something).