[statecom] Delegates at national convention

[Daniel Melnechuk]

Wanda,

If you read those rules you suppled the link to they are dated as of  
4/22/04 so i don't know if they apply and i would guess not.

I believe you have indeed misunderstood my proposal. It does not  
undercut anything. It does not censor anyone. I do not have any fears  
of maneuvering. The proposal seeks to manifest what i am hearing  
everyone agree upon that the Green-Rainbow Party wants only to have a  
Green Presidential candidate on the ballot, not to have the national  
convention just endorse a candidate, and avoid the mess that happened  
in 2004 where Nader attempted to get the endorsement and not the  
nomination of our national party. This was the sentiment at our state  
convention and recently expressed again by Merelice, Mike and me, to  
name a few.

So my proposal says that whatever the rules may be at national, our  
delegation will also have our own set of constraints that it must  
work under. These may turn out to be the same as national, or they  
may be more constrained than national. But we can choose what we want  
to do. We already have in our delegate selection plan that committed  
delegates must continue to vote for their candidate until released by  
the candidate. So there is no problem with us setting more  
constraints on our delegation.

If someone has a pointer to the national rules for 2008 that would be  
good to post so we all can read it.

Peace,
Dan



On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Wanda Boeke wrote:

> Dan,
>
> I have read your proposal (for submission to April 12 SC meeting)  
> and would
> again bring to your attention the breadth of the Green Party's own  
> previous
> nomination convention floor rules:
>
> (URL: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/T04/Gr-Floor.phtml)
> "Delegates may vote for any candidate or any non-candidate option  
> during the
> first round. If there is a first-round winner, that candidate must  
> formally
> accept nomination, or that candidate becomes ineligible and the voting
> proceeds to the second round.
>
> After the first round of voting, candidates who have not formally  
> indicated
> in writing their willingness to accept nomination and to allow  
> their names
> to be placed on all state ballots shall be ineligible to receive  
> votes in
> subsequent rounds."
>
> Unless I have misunderstood, your proposal would undercut what  
> appears to be
> a wider democratic process already in place at the national  
> convention by
> limiting our delegates even before arriving at the convention. The
> convention will undoubtedly have the "in writing" clause again in the
> nomination floor rules. That is, candidates not intending to accept
> nomination on the GP ballot in writing (such acceptance evidently  
> provided
> prior to or during the convention) cannot be eligible candidates for
> nomination.
>
> I understand the various fears of endorsement maneuvering etc. -  
> however, if
> current "non-candidate" Nader were to have a substantial delegate  
> showing at
> the national convention, then he has support (whether anyone likes  
> that idea
> or not), just like any other candidate or non-candidate.
>
> Remember, I was one of the (few) people who encouraged 'only Green'
> candidates on our ballot (and the Berkshire local submitted that  
> proposal at
> the 2004 annual meeting). I still stand behind this, but I stand  
> even more
> behind what voters want. If voters around the country still want  
> Nader and
> the draft Nader folks get a substantial following who are Greens,  
> and he
> were to accept such nomination, then this is the will of (a portion  
> of) the
> national votership.
>
> I definitely support votership, not (perceived?) censorship.  
> Apologies if I
> have misunderstood your proposal.
>
> Wanda
> Berkshire County
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>