[statecom] ONLY for those interested in discussing the Delegate Selection Plan

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Hi, this is a one time posting, since we have been asked to take this 
conversation off-line.   anyone interested in brainstorming about what to do with the 
ongoing procedural problems with implementing our delegate plan, please be in 
touch with me to join those of us who are trying to tackle this...

An overview of a key problem which several people have suggested solutions to 
(such changes will have to be filed with the state):

Page 16:
"All delegates and alternate delegates committed to a particular candidate 
must pledge to vote for that candidate, or another candidate that their 
candidate has designated.   This requirement ceases to be in effect when the 
candidate, to whom the delegate or alternate delegate is committed, decides to free 
their delegates and alternate delegates."

In contrast, in Jan. 18th email, Nat Fortune provided this as an explanation 
of what happens when a candidate withdraws [while it is not what our Delegate 
Plan provides, it might be what we would want to submit as an amendment to the 
State]: “that {withdrawn} candidate's delegates are released to vote for 
whomever they choose.   So if any of the people on our ballot change their mind 
and either declare that they are no longer a candidate or have decided not to 
run after all, the delegates elected in their name will be free to support any 
of the remaining candidates.   (They are, of course, as uncommitted delegates, 
free to vote for anyone they choose…).

Nat's email sent on January 18th, of course, is essentially Mike Heichman's 
proposal for withdrawn candidates so perhaps, although it was not discussed at 
the statecom meeting, we actually have agreement?

Merelice proposed in her February 7th email: “… I believe my proposal is a 
way to get the Party's required assurances from ALL candidates. … fair to 
candidates and voters, while honoring the Party's requirements. …. Let's notify 
those candidates whose vote levels qualify them for delegates.   At the same 
time, let's explain that their delegates are to fulfill the purpose of seeking the 
Green Party's presidential nomination. … If delegates are accepted, the 
candidate -acknowledges that accepting them indicates support of the 10 Key Values, 
- understands that the delegates will become uncommitted if the candidate 
does not seek the Green Party nomination, …”

Merelice's proposal would require a change in when delegates are assigned - 
in the Delegate selection plan it says (page 15):
“Within one (1) week of approving the delegate number results, the 
Administrative committee must notify each candidate in writing, by email and by phone of 
the number of congressional districts and at-large delegates and alternate 
delegates the candidate won,…”

The candidates are notified about delegates they “won”, so we'd have to 
insert a step beforehand to get them to agree before we assign them delegates.

Dan Melnechuk proposed in his email, January 29th: “Delegates from 
Massachusetts at the National Green Party 2008   
Presidential Nominating Convention, whether committed or uncommitted,   
may only vote for candidates who are seeking the nomination for   
president of the Green party and will be running as the Green Party   
presidential candidate in the 2008 Presidential election, and may not   
vote for candidates who are seeking the endorsement for president of   
the Green Party or will not be running as the Green Party   
presidential candidate in the 2008 Presidential election. Committed   
delegates to a candidate who is seeking the endorsement for president   
of the Green Party or will not be running as the Green Party   
presidential candidate in the 2008 Presidential election are   
considered to be released from that candidate and can vote as an   
uncommitted delegates.”

Besides Merelice's point that Dan's language is written as after the 
nomination has been made in some places, it would require changing the language on 
delegates having to vote as they are told once they are assigned.

As I stated in my email to Elie (who also offered a logical option), for 
withdrawn candidates, even if they don't send us a list of delegates, according to 
our Plan we have to assign them delegates - as they may not be at the 
convention and they no longer have a campaign, our delegates assigned to them, simply 
will be unable to vote and they can never be released.

So simply the plan must be changed - no matter whose formulation we prefer.

For those interested in brainstorm corrective language - please contact me.

Both Statecom and CDLC have decided not to discuss this; I am inviting those 
who wish to open-mindedly and open-heartedly brainstorm how to address these 
problems to contact me so I can bring a group together to do this -

Thanks, Grace




- Grace C Ross
2006 Gubernatorial Candidate, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

"Privilege corrupts; Absolute privilege corrupts absolutely. Because we 
recognize the power of love, the power of faith, the power of our connection to 
each other, it became important to specify that it is positions of power combined 
with a sense of differentiated entitlement that is really dangerous."



**************
Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)