[GNC] Proxy voting by our delegation

[Ion Freeman]

Merelice,
   To the extent that I've been able to follow this
thread, this seems to be the central disagreement. Let
me know if there's something else we're disagreeing
about as well.
   Here's my argument:
1. Proxies belong to the delegation they came with
until they are released. I think that's self-evident,
right? I'm just including it here for framing.
2. After their release, or if they came in as no
preference, they belong to the Mass 'gation. So, OK,
do they belong to the whole 'gation, or the released
delegates?
--> I say they should belong to the whole delegation,
but not as part of the candidate delegation. That is,
if a Salzman delegate wishes to vote for Mesplay
before she releases her delegation, the delegate can
do so through control of the proxy.
   So while the direct votes of bound delegates and
proxies are dictated by the candidate's wishes, the
proxy allocation votes of the bound candidates would
themselves be free. If your candidate was eliminated
and instructed you to vote Nader, you could still
exercise your free will by sending proxy votes to
Mesplay.
   How does that sound? This prevents the automatic
allocation of proxies to candidates who did not win
them in the general election, while not preferentially
empowering anyone.
ion
'Play 'gation.

--- Merelice at aol.com wrote:
> Ah, the wonders of communication. Let me try again.
> 
> For a while, the Massachusetts delegation will
> consist of candidate 
> delegations and no preference. I agree that once a
> candidate's delegation is released, 
> it (including its proxies) would go into the pool.
> The question is, what pool? 
> The in-person delegates will go into the
> no-preference pool, that is, not 
> committed to any candidate. That is why I think the
> proxies should also go into 
> the no-preference pool. But some are proposing that
> the proxies go into the 
> whole Massachusetts delegation pool which would
> still include some candidates' 
> delegations (who are still committed to a
> candidate). So my question is why 
> should those remaining candidates' delegations have
> a say over how the released 
> proxies are voted? Shouldn't the released proxies be
> determined by those who are 
> not part of a candidate's delegation? At some point,
> it should become moot, 
> because (presumably) we all will end up voting for a
> winniing candidate even 
> though we did not start out in that candidate's
> delegation.
> Merelice


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/