[statecom] [candidate-development] [adcom] Special State Committee Meeting now in session
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Wed Jun 18 23:14:59 EDT 2008
Grace,
I have no reason to discuss the principles that underlie your desire
to give your candidate a majority that nullifies the election.
Nor have I any reasons to doubt that it " . . . has been included
in some material." This is dismissive about my express request,
"Where can we find a readable copy of the McKinney favoring
apportionment?" The answer that it must be some where around, is
probably the reason that it has never been proposed, namely that the
proponent of this distribution knew that it would never be accepted.
But I may be wrong. Send me copies of the places where it has been
included. That will enable a serious effort at consensus, that is not
available when intentions are not declared.
Elie Yarden
delegate, Middlesex
On Jun 18, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
> As has been included in some material, Elie, is the apportionment
> that goes as follows:
>
> Kat Swift 2
> Cynthia McKinney 20 10 congressional district
> Kent Mesplay 2
> No Preference 8
> Total 32 10
>
> This apportionment does not give delegates to people who are not
> longer or never were running for the Green Presidential Nomination.
> This is the apportionment that you get if you understand that the
> only candidates we can work to place on our November ballot are
> those that can legitimately be put in front of voters in November -
> Nader has said he does not want to be the Green Presidential
> Candidate (and is seeking his Massachusetts ballot line as an
> Independent and asking those who spuport him to help him do that)
> and Brown and Ball has said they have withdrawn their names from
> consideration.
>
> Similarly people get this apportionment if they consider Brown, Ball
> and Nader to have already released their deelgates by saying they
> are not seeking our party's nomination.
>
> There will be more later on this issue. I have requested at stages
> all along the way that this apportinoment continue to be listed.
> And as we have not agreed to an apportionment in either CDLC nor
> Adcom, it is appropriate I believe to continue to list the options
> which will be available to Statecom.
>
> Thanks for asking, Grace
>
>
> In a message dated 6/18/08 12:26:09 PM, yen.yarden at verizon.net writes:
>
>
>> Thank you, Grace,
>> It is good to hear another voice attending this State Committee
>> meeting. No apology needed really, but perhaps I too must apologize
>> for " . . . maynot have read all materials- . . " Where can
>> we
>> find a readable copy of the the McKinney favoring apportionment
>> (" . . . apportinoment I suport - McKinney delegates must
>> fulfill
>> mosto f those." ) that you support? The only apportionment that I
>> operate from and therefor _present,_ is the only one that was
>> available to discuss in the efforts of the CDLC to do the work
>> assigned it. Had there been another set of numbers, we might have
>> offered two apportionment lists; one with only 4 uncommitted
>> delegates, giving the GRP a minimal role in the selection of a 32
>> person delegation, if this is what Grace intends. But I really do
>> not
>> know what I am talking about. The only apportionment, I have read,
>> is
>> the one that spells out as Ball (1), Brown (1), McKinney (9), Mesplay
>> (1), Nader (15), Swift (1), not committed (4). The numbers for the
>> other apportionment -- the one to which Grace refers -- was not
>> before
>> the CDLC. I would, as a member of the State Committee, and also as a
>> delegate to the NC would very much like to read it. Where may I find
>> it?
>>
>> There had been an earlier interpretation of the official election
>> results according to our official Delegate Selection Plan, that would
>> have allowed for a greater number of Uncommitted delegates - eight.
>> And having 8 uncommitted delegates would have allowed us twice as
>> much
>> scope for achieving diversity goals as having only 4. But, at our
>> the
>> previous State Convention Grace Ross, Jim Hammerman, Mike Heichman
>> and
>> perhaps a few other people opposed the proposed apportionment. One
>> of
>> the problems, it appeared, when John Andrews, Jim, Grace, and I
>> stepped out of the room, had to do with the distribution of 'write-
>> ins' on our ballots, enough votes for 4 delegates in the initial
>> reapportionment. The 'compromise' insisted upon by Grace on various
>> grounds, was that to redistribute these votes, for unknown persons,
>> among the existing candidates was somehow 'fairer.' I readily admit
>> that I simply did not 'get it.' "Fairer to whom?" I asked myself and
>> could not find an answer. But here, _I_ am at fault for -- among
>> other things -- failing to see how this could affect our ability to
>> meet the other goals of apportionment which are referred to by Grace.
>>
>> One of the first orders of business at this Special State Committee
>> Meeting should be to substitute the _amended_ Delegate Selection
>> Plan,
>> approved as amended by the last GRP State Committee meeting and
>> dated
>> April 12, 2008 that was sent to all the candidates whose names
>> appeared on our Primary ballot, for the earlier version that was
>> placed there at before our meeting opened. I will explain why
>> clarity
>> about numbers is important elsewhere. There are persons involved.
>> Elie Yarden
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 18, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > I apologise that I may not have read all materials-
>> >
>> > But I believe we are not simply going to be able to use STVP for
>> > uncomitted
>> > deelgates - we have criteria that I beleive will limit that - We
>> > could STVP
>> > within gender (in fact I think we did in 2004) if we have enough
>> > volunteers for
>> > uncommitted slots to need to choose -
>> >
>> > But we will need a simple system to clarify diversity
>> > characteristics - for
>> > instance, in the apportionment that Elie presents - the delegates
>> > representing
>> > Nader need to fulfill our geographic diversity requirements of
>> > representing
>> > almost all Congressional districts. In the apportinoment I suport
>> > - McKinney
>> > delegates must fulfill mosto f those.
>> >
>> > In addition, we need racial diversity and sexual orientation
>> diversity
>> > informatio. And I suspect the percentages required for thse
>> > categories in our
>> > delegate selection plan will need to be posted.
>> >
>> > And if we are piking among ovluneteers we are supposed to
>> receive, I
>> > beleive
>> > some brief statement from each? As these are representative
>> > positinos and
>> > not everyone already knows everybody...
>> >
>> > Thanks, Grace
>> > In a message dated 6/18/08 1:16:19 AM, jokeefe at jamesokeefe.org
>> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Hi Elie, et. al.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Jamie,
>> >>> Thank you.
>> >>>
>> >>> The substance of the proposal to appoint delegates from the GRP
>> to
>> >>> the
>> >>> 2008 Presidential Nominating Convention has already been
>> presented
>> >>> to
>> >>> the State Committee meeting.
>> >>
>> >> I am confused. I don't see anything in the official statecom list
>> >> archives that could be considered the substance of a proposal to
>> >> appoint specific delegates to the national convention. To what
>> are
>> >> you referring?
>> >>
>> >>> Since this meeting was called to select
>> >>> those delegates who are not selected by the Candidates, and
>> >>> because we
>> >>> would like to have as complete a delegation as possible chosen,
>> the
>> >>> proposal to be made should also allow for volunteers to be
>> appointed
>> >>> until such time as this is complete.
>> >>
>> >> That is my understanding as well.
>> >>
>> >>> I have no familiarity with the
>> >>> design of such proposals and have therefor requested as a
>> model, a
>> >>> copy of the proposal for delegate selection used by the GRP in
>> 2004.
>> >>> While I am sure that I do not have the experience and
>> competence to
>> >>> write such a proposal, I was charged with reporting the work of
>> the
>> >>> CDLC in this matter to the State Committee.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for taking on that responsibility.
>> >>
>> >>> While I have no proposal to present, I am participating in this
>> >>> meeting, called to perform the task of approving a list of
>> delegates
>> >>> to the Nominating Convention. And there is nothing for me to
>> do. I
>> >>> would like to invoke the technical skills in proposal writing
>> that
>> >>> undoubtedly exist in the Party, to handle the demands of so
>> >>> complex a
>> >>> task, with all due regard for the attitudes of the people who are
>> >>> waiting to find out whether or not they have been selected.
>> May we
>> >>> have some volunteers and recommendations by tomorrow afternoon.
>> >>
>> >> I was unable to dig up what was presented in 2004. I would hope
>> that
>> >> the CDLC would have consulted with the 2008 Delegate Selection
>> Plan
>> >> for whatever specifications it provides.
>> >>
>> >> I did find a note that the CDLC presented statements by people who
>> >> wanted to be delegates. It looks to me like the delegates for
>> >> uncommitted delegate positions were elected by the STV-PR system
>> we
>> >> specify in our by-laws (Section 5). The primary thing was to
>> order
>> >> the delegates so the first positions filled were delegate
>> positions
>> >> and then alternate delegate positions.
>> >>
>> >> Candidate lists were approved in total, I believe.
>> >>
>> >> Additionally, please consult the April 2004 State Committee
>> meeting
>> >> minutes (specifically pages 4-5):
>> >>
>> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2004-April/
>> >> 004692.html
>> >>
>> >> And the 2004 Party Convention minutes (specifically pages 3-4):
>> >>
>> >> http://green-rainbow.org/StateConvention/2004/GRP_Convention_2004_Minutes.pd
>> >> f
>> >>
>> >>> Are the people in attendance reading this? Have any volunteered
>> >>> to be
>> >>> delegates?
>> >>
>> >> I would think that these messages are being sent to all state
>> >> committee members. I hope they are reading it. When we actually
>> >> have
>> >> a ballot, I am sure I will be doing a bunch of calls to all of the
>> >> state committee members who have not posted their ballots.
>> >>
>> >> Jamie
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> StateCom mailing list
>> >> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
>> >> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > **************
>> > Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
>> > fuel-efficient used cars.
>> > (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > AdCom mailing list
>> > AdCom at green-rainbow.org
>> > http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/adcom
>> > To email Administration Committee members: adcom.members AT green-
>> > rainbow DOT org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> candidate-development mailing list
>> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient
> used cars.
> (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
More information about the StateCom
mailing list