[gpva-ic] Convention delegates

[aloe at rev.net]

At 10:21 AM 6/16/04 -0400, Dr. Christopher Fink wrote:
>I share your enthusiasm for ensuring we maximize our impact at the
>convention.

Let's consider our mission providing the representation our members are
entitled to.

>A few points of clarification :

>2) According to the Floor Rules currently in place (including the proxy
>amendment, which passed), we can have a maximum of twice as many votes as we
>have accredited delegates who actually show up at the convention.

leaving us short.

>3) We are awaiting word from the USGP Credentialing Committee on their
>interpretation of the proxy amendment, as it is possible that even those
>votes cast as proxies must represent delegates who have been previously
>credentialed by the committee. The other interpretation (which,
>interestingly, is the "strict" reading of the rules), would allow a proxy
>vote to represent almost ANYONE. We're hoping this will be the
>interpretation, but it is unlikely.

Although that looks good for us, I worry about how other states might use
the opportunity. Power corrupts.

>4) It has never been the intent of the GPVA Delegation Selection Body to put
>a lot of effort into deciding exactly WHICH delegates will cast which votes.

OK. If they don't do it, who is in the best position?

>We are all in this together, working for the same team,

Really? For the first time, I know numerous Greens who support candidates
outside our party.

>and a random
>selection process should be good enough.

Unfortunately, I believe that the prospect of assigned votes damps the
response. Some people do not want to be told to vote for one candidate when
they prefer another. For example, I did not submit my name because I felt I
could vote for Lorna Salzman or NOTA, but not a male candidate for president.

Nevertheless, if you find enough delegates willing to take pot luck, then
we can approve them and defer the other concern.

-- Charlie Jordan <http://www.rev.net/~aloe/green/brg.html>