[statecom-discuss] Clarifying the StateCom meeting re presidential candidates and delegates

[Merelice]

On 2/4/08, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:

> Only the uncommitted delegates get decided in April - the others are all
>  assigned well before that, in fact before the brief statecom meeting you and Dan
>  will have in March.

I appreciate the clarification.

>
>  So CDLC will have a delegate selection plan to follow that does not address
>  candidates that are withdrawn or draft - Grace


Currently the delegate selection plan makes no distinction about the
type of candidate on our ballot. The simplest solution is to use 2004
as precedent when Nader, who wasn't on the Mass. ballot, received
write-in votes. The GRP honored the wishes of the voters and assigned
him a delegate.

Our mantra to voters in other parties has been: "Vote for what you
want, not what you are told you can get." Let's apply that advice to
ourselves and respect those who "vote for what they want"  and not try
to tell them "what they can get."

We simply assign the number of delegates proportionately to the votes
received (unless there's a write-in candidate who belongs to another
political party), which is what our current plan provides. Many people
in the party see no reason to change that procedure.

Merelice

P.S. As noted in a previous email, you need to recuse yourself from
this discussion. It is a conflict of interest, given your active
support of one of the candidates.


> In a message dated 2/4/08 2:53:46 PM, merelice at gmail.com writes:

>  Mike,
..... And given what you heard,
>  > there was considerable guidance regarding how we treat the results of
>  > the primary: Many spoke on behalf of giving all the candidates --
>  > including the two who have withdrawn -- the delegates that they earn
>  > in the primary.
>  >
>  > If people don't agree with that analysis, there is another StateCom
>  > meeting before the July convention delegates get appointed.....