[Needtoknow] [candidate-development] Fwd: some thoughts on CDLC memo

Mon Apr 7 20:22:18 EDT 2008

In response to John's "Modest Proposal":

I think that John confuses the GRP with Stalin's control of his 
Communist Party.

I am confident that our comrades in the GRP will seek out solutions that 
are more consistent with our values.

Mike Heichman

PS. John, what should happen to those who are purged? trials? the gulag? 
executions?

John Walsh wrote:

>How can Dan be treated seriously after his refusal to comply with  
>StateCom and the chairs on the contacts.
>He should be out of there - pronto.
>He may believe he is doing the right thing but the majority do not  
>agree.  And so we should ask him (and Jamie and Grace and Mike) to  
>step down from all official positions.
>Let us have done with manipulation and undermining democracy and  
>plain old dirty tricks.
>Best,
>john walsh (former delegate to the NC)
>
>
>On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Merelice wrote:
>
>  
>
>>FYI to AdCom,
>>
>>I wrote this response to CDLC today before reading Dan's email
>>spelling out the options as he sees them. You will note that I spell
>>out options below that are somewhat different. I don't envy CDLC!
>>
>>It's quite possible that the national rules could also make a
>>difference. I thought that four years ago, a candidate had to respond
>>positively to votes received on the first ballot; otherwise, the
>>candidate was considered NOT to be seeking the nomination and,
>>thereby, the delegates were released. I foresee little likelihood of
>>any delegate being bound for the entire convention.
>>
>>You will note that at the very end of Michelle Tassinari's email
>>(which Dan re-copied in his email), she refered to my "most recent
>>email" and chose to comment on one point. That email also summarized
>>CDLC's recommendation that the delegates for withdrawn candidates
>>become uncommitted.  Ms. Tassinari did not choose to respond to that
>>point. Had she had an issue with that proposal, she might have said
>>so, since she did choose to comment on another point. Obviously that
>>is speculation on my part, but she does tend to be thorough in her
>>responses.
>>
>>I appreciate Dan's concern over his responsibility as a party officer.
>>He's not alone in that concern. And I have complete confidence that,
>>officers or not, CDLC members have the legal, ethical, and electoral
>>wellbeing of the GRP at heart.
>>Merelice
>>
>>
>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>From: Merelice <merelice at gmail.com>
>>Date: Apr 7, 2008 10:38 AM
>>Subject: Re: [candidate-development] some thoughts on CDLC memo
>>To: DvEngland at aol.com, Jill Stein <jstein at massmed.org>
>>Cc: candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
>>
>>
>>Greetings,
>>
>> I wonder what kind of "vetting" of the delegate selection plan
>> actually takes place at the Secretary's Office. If it were thorough,
>> they might have said something to us about our not covering the  
>>matter
>> of withdrawn candidates. In fact, we did not get any kind of response
>> or confirmation or OK from the Office after we submitted the plan.
>>
>> A thought if we go the slower route of changing the plan: Just as we
>> have improved on the Democrat's plan in some ways, I believe it would
>> be another improvement to make delegates uncommitted rather than
>> apportion them to the remaining candidates. My reasoning would be  
>>that
>> the remaining candidates did not really earn them and that we have no
>> way of knowing whether the voters would assign them that way. I have
>> more faith in the good judgment of uncommitted delegates than in
>> arbitrarily apportioning the delegates to just three of the four
>> remaining candidates seeking the nomination.
>>
>> The simplest and quickest (and we've seen, the most contentious) way
>> to proceed would be to assign the delegates as currently described in
>> our plan until the candidates release them (which will be no later
>> than after the first ballot at the convention and could be sooner).
>>
>> Perhaps the next simplest would be to get legal counsel to agree with
>> the CDLC recommendation to consider the withdrawal of candidates as
>> equivalent to their releasing their delegates -- provided the GRP
>> notifies all the candidates accordingly and lets them know they can
>> disagree and ask for their delegates. Such a ruling would not require
>> a change in our plan at this time, would likely be acceptable to the
>> majority of statecom members, and would satisfy those who have
>> expressed acceptance of this approach among the minority opinion
>> signatories.
>>
>> CDLC may come up with other options; those are the ones I can  
>>identify.
>>
>> Merelice
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/08, Jamie O'Keefe <jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Thanks, Dave.  One thing I noticed.
>>>      
>>>
>>[Grace wrote:]
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>> PS. one advantage of handling the apportionment  this way is  
>>>>>that the
>>>>> Secretary of the commonwealth cannot object since it is  how  
>>>>>the Mass
>>>>> Democrats do:
>>>>> "If a presidential candidate is no longer a  candidate at the  
>>>>>time of
>>>>> selection of the at-large delegates, then those  at-large
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>slots that would have been
>>    
>>
>>>>> allocated to the candidate will  be proportionally divided
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>among the remaining
>>    
>>
>>>>> preferences entitled to an allocation. (Rule 10.C.)"
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>[Dave wrote:]
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>It's clear from this experience that, after the  election, we  
>>>>need to revisit
>>>>the plan and address several weaknesses.  For  now, however,
>>>>        
>>>>
>>this is the plan
>>    
>>
>>>>that's on file with the Secretary's office and  the plan that  
>>>>needs to be
>>>>followed for this cycle.   As for the Dems, they have their rule
>>>>        
>>>>
>>and we, in effect,
>>    
>>
>>>>have no rule.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>[Jamie wrote:]
>>
>>    
>>
>>>When we wrote our plan in 2004, we did borrow bits of the Dem's plan.
>>> The Diversity requirements were clearly one that we used and  
>>>expanded.
>>>  Now, I would say that our method of apportioning delegates is
>>> superior since we don't have a 15% threshold, but we should be  
>>>careful
>>> that we don't do something simply because the Dems do it.
>>>
>>> One advantage to using the Dem's language for apportioning votes  
>>>from
>>> withdrawn candidates is that the language has already been vetted by
>>> the Elections Divistion, so we know it is considered legal.
>>>
>>> Either way, since the Delegate Selection plan does not outline  
>>>what we
>>> do in the case of withdrawn candidates, we need to modify it to deal
>>> with the possibilities we face at this time.  By our Delegate
>>> Selection plan, we have that ability.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the work you and others have done on this issue.
>>>
>>> peace,
>>>
>>>
>>> Jamie
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>candidate-development mailing list
>>candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
>>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>>
>>    
>>
>
>John V. Walsh, MD
>Professor of Physiology
>University of Massachusetts Medical School
>508-856-3360 (Office)
>508-868-1653 (Cell)
>john.walsh at umassmed.edu
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>candidate-development mailing list
>candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>
>  
>