[GNC] Proxy voting by our delegation-CONFUSION ALERT!!!!

[Mike Heichman]

HI EVERYONE:

A LITTLE WHILE AGO I WAS SO HAPPY THAT I WAS GOING TO GET MY BUTTONS WHEN I
GOT TO MILWAUKEE. NOW I'M FALLING THE PROXY VOTE DISCUSSION AND AM CONVINCED
THAT I HAVE ONCE AGAIN LOST MY BUTTONS!

Once again I feel sorry and a little stupid, but I really am lost once again
and feeling overwhelmed and mentally resistant.

I know this is an important issue and I am not trying to belittle anyone's
opinion.

I have a request--could a couple (or more people)  who really understand
this have a "private" conversation "off-line" and try to hash this out and
come back with a SIMPLE
one-page proposal. Maybe the best that we can do is to come up with a
partial proposal where there is consensus and refer the rest of this to
Milwaukee, when all of this might be clearer.

In search of my buttons once again,

Mike Heichman





on 6/14/04 11:53 AM, Merelice at aol.com at 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

In a message dated 6/14/04 11:07:11 AM, ionfreeman at yahoo.com writes:


I believe by 'whole delegation,' this rule means
'Massachusetts delegation,' not 'Mesplay delegation.'
Should it come to pass that we have a proxy vote and
Kent releases us, it would go into the pool. I can't
imagine anyone would suggest a candidate's delegation
would have more interest in the proxy votes than the
candidate would.

ion

--- Merelice at aol.com wrote:
>
> Rich,
> ...
> No preference doesn't
> mean don't choose.
>
> At the same time, I'm not sure it's appropriate for
> a Salzman or Cobb
> delegate to decide how other delegates or their
> proxies should vote, but I get the
> impression that that is what you are proposing (and
> what several seem to agree
> with you) by saying that proxies (once released)
> should go to the whole
> delegation. Why do you (and others?) think that is
> fair?





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/gnc/attachments/20040614/adc47bb0/attachment.htm