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

[Mike Heichman]

Merelice wrote:

>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).
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>  
>