[statecom] Delegates at national convention

[Daniel Melnechuk]

John,

This is statecom business, in particular it is vetting early of a  
proposal that i plan on bringing to statecom in april. It needs to be  
addressed now so that all the issues come up. Thank you for  
expressing yours so i have a chance to

This proposal is about honoring what was already decided at our state  
convention and what people are agreeing to that our presidential  
candidates should be seeking the nomination of the party to run as a  
Green presidential candidate, not an endorsement of the party to run  
as independent. Remember in the drive home from statecom on sunday  
that you expressed how you wish that distinction had been made  
clearer earlier, the distinction of nomination versus endorsement and  
the issues of the 2004 national nominating convention.

As already stated in response to Wanda, our presidential delegate  
selection plan already has the constraint for committed delegates to  
vote for their candidate until they are released. The proposal only  
adds one more constraint, that the candidate must be running for the  
nomination, not the endorsement.

This proposal does nothing else. It does not dishonor the voters who  
may vote for Nader. I bet you and everyone else reading this will  
agree that most voters, if not all, who take a GRP ballot at the  
primary and vote for Nader want him for the Green candidate. Right?

Put the other way, does anyone who votes for a candidate at a primary  
think they are voting for that candidate to be endorsed by their  
party but run as an independent candidate instead of being nominated  
by the party they vote in? No way. So this proposal is not going  
against the will of the voters, instead it is actually bolstering the  
will of the voters.

Peace,
Dan

PS: Tomorrow i am going to see the testing of the optical scan  
ballots in Waltham. Will let you know the results.

On Jan 30, 2008, at 4:16 PM, John Andrews wrote:

> Dan, Wanda,
>
> Shouldn't we move this discussion to the statecom-discuss list?  If
> Dan would agree, we can do that.
>
> Some of the discussion seems to be something that would be done during
> vetting of the proposal by CDLC, etc.  Maybe its premature to go into
> this.
>
> That said, I do have a comment.  I am generally reluctant  to have
> StateComm debate national issues and then tie the hands of delegates,
> forcing them to vote the views of StateComm.  This results in
> StateComm spending too much time on national issues for which we have
> little background, little influence,  and may be getting a one-sided
> point of view.  I think delegates at the convention can listen to the
> best arguments for all sides and cast an intelligent vote.  This is
> the best way to honor the democratic principle that the voters
> selected the delegates to transmit their values to the convention.
> The more we tie the hands of delegates, the more the convention
> becomes a done deal, with the will of the voters being replaced by the
> will of  StateComm.  And circumstances at the convention could be
> quite different than envisioned by StateCom months earlier.   I don't
> say that we should never restrict our delegates, but it should take a
> really compelling argument that delegates are incapable of thinking
> for themselves.    ( I don't have a problem with the requirement to
> vote for your candidate in the first round since this appears to be
> insurance that the will of the voters is not subverted by appointment
> of sham delegates.)
>
> - John
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>