[GNC] Proxy voting by our delegation

[Ion Freeman]

Merelice,
   I believe that I understand your recommendation --
that free proxy votes will be allocated according only
to the votes of free delegates -- but thank you for
clarifying.
   You are correct in identifying me as disagreeing. I
propose that the free proxy votes be allocated
according to the wishes of every present delegate.
This is fair and balanced.
   I see the point that it is fair to infer that if
there were more free delegates, they would vote like
the other free delegates, rather than like the
commonwealth of Massachusetts. 
   But, we're not trying to predict what would happen
with more people: we're trying to distribute decision
making power equitably, and to select a presidential
candidate.
   Not including the bound delegates in this voting
moves us _away from a decision.
   I did recommend the simplfying move of using the
free proxy votes to 'amplify' the bound and free
votes, instead of polling for them separately. I don't
know that bound delegates would vote for a candidate
against the wishes of their candidate. But, maybe they
would.
   It has been suggested that we're not talking about
significant numbers of proxy votes, anyway. So, while
I do feel the bound, present delegates should help
allocate the free proxies, if there's any kind of
consensus emerging, I'm happy to sign on to it.
   Sorry for all the text and bandwidth we're using up
on this, but as Amartya Sen put it at the Kennedy
School commencement, democracy is government by
discussion.
ion

--- Merelice at aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 6/14/04 3:12:16 PM,
> ionfreeman at yahoo.com writes:
> 
> 
> > I say they should belong to the whole delegation,
> > but not as part of the candidate delegation.
> > 
> 
> I think you are still not understanding me, Ion. My
> point is that the WHOLE 
> Massachusetts delegation will include a candidate's
> delegation that is still 
> committed to its candidate. Say, for example, Paul
> Glover releases his 
> delegates/proxies. Those delegates/proxies go into
> the no-preference pool. Meanwhile, 
> the Cobb delegation and Salzman delegation still
> have not been released. The 
> no-preference pool then decides how they will vote
> in the next round. I am 
> suggesting the released proxies reflect that vote,
> that is, the vote of the 
> no-preference pool. I believe, however, that it has
> been suggested that the proxies 
> should reflect the vote of the entire Mass.
> delegation, including those who are 
> still committed to their candidates. This seems to
> me to give an unbalanced 
> influence to committed delegates.
> 
> Is this clearer? Or did you in fact understand that
> this is what I am saying 
> and simply disagree?
> 
> Meanwhile, the following is completely puzzling to
> me in light of your first 
> point, which is that proxies belong to their
> delegation until released. The 
> following seems like a direct contradiction.
> 
>  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.
> Merelice
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail