Presidential Nominating Convention rules going down in flames
June 25, 2008 in Presidential Campaign
As I noted in an earlier post here at GPW, The Green National Committee is considering a proposal to change and establish rules for the Presidential Nominating Convention in Chicago. In my original post I pointed out that California delegates had not voted in support of the proposal, and anonymous asked why I singled out the California delegation.
Well, another look today shows why I took notice. Proposal 348 is in trouble, and in no small part because the California delegation has voted 13 no votes and not a single “yes” vote yet. With the vote currently at 20 yes, and 29 no, the California delegation is the only one of size that is unified solidly on one side of the question. New York is split, as is Illinois. Maine is unified behind the “Yes” position, and no one from Texas has voted yet.
That is why I said that California was worth keeping an eye on.
Anonymous said on June 25, 2008
So, why are people voting ‘no’? And is there an alternate proposal out there? Is there a default procedure in place? How are we supposed to nominate a Presidential ticket with no procedure?
Green in Brooklyn (Colin Young) said on June 25, 2008
COrrect me if I’m wrong, but to change to procedure needs a supermajority (not sure if it’s 60% or 2/3rds). If they don’t manage to pass a procedure, then we go with the same procedure as in 2004, right? Of course the California delegation has been complaining about the 2004 procedures as undemocratic for 4 years, so I’m not sure what defeating this new procedure does for them
Ronald Kane Hardy said on June 25, 2008
I’m not on the national committee and don’t know any more than I hear from those who are, but I did get the impression that California is not of one mind on these issues.
I’m the first one that should be careful not to generalize too much.
I don’t know if we can expect the fireworks this time around at the Chicago Convention. However if there are fireworks, you will hear about them here I hope! I am going to apply for media credentials as a blogger at the Chicago Convention. It would be nice if there was another GPW blogger there as well, since there is a lot going on in different places and spotty wireless connections.
Let us know if you will be at Chicago and blogging.
Gregg Jocoy said on June 26, 2008
As to why people are voting no, I’m not sure. No one else from California has voted yet, and I am sure Ron is correct that California is *not* of one mind, but so far only one view is being expressed, and that’s a “no”.
I would guess that, unless they want a conflict at the nominating convention, the GNC will *have* to find wording they can live with very, very soon.
And yes Colin, it has to pass with a 2/3 super majority, so “down in flames” doesn’t seem to tough a phrase to use.
Bryan said on June 27, 2008
I hate the “legalese” in proposals…But I can find one area that Cali Greens may have a problem with.
Keeping in mind that ~60% voted for Nader, the following would be a problem for that group…
Check out 5-10.4 through 5-10.5(b) of proposal 348. ……………..
5-10.4 If there is a first-round winner, that candidate must formally
accept the nomination, or that candidate becomes ineligible and the
voting proceeds to the second round.
5-10.5 After the first round,
5-10.5(a) No candidate shall be eligible to receive votes who has
failed to declare in writing to the Election Administrator their
intention to accept the nomination if offered and to cooperate with
each member state party of the Green Party of the United States to have
their name placed on each ballot line to which a member State Party may
be eligible.
5-10.5(b) Votes for ineligible candidates shall be treated as
abstentions and shall not count toward the threshold for nomination………………….
Unless I am all wrong, it would eliminate Nader as a candidate/possible nominee, unless he wins and accepts after the 1st round of voting. Or if he indicates in writing that he is seeking and will accept the nomination.
Also, “No Candidate” could win in which case there could be an endorsement…but “No Candidate” will require a majority vote as well…
This is the only reason in the proposal I can find that would be offensive to the CA folks….
Bryan said on June 28, 2008
Don’t mean to harp on the subject, but did you look at the voting by state on the proposal vs. those states with medium to strong Nader support in the primaries?
Arkansas- 53% uncommitted and 1 no vote on the proposal.
Hawaii- 4 McKinney-4 Nader delegates and 1 no vote.
Illinois-Howie Hawkins got 17% and 2 no votes-1 yes.
Virginia- 3 delegates Nader-2 delegates McKinney 1 no vote on the proposal.
Also, Nader got 2 delegates from FL, 3 MI, 2 NY, 1 WI, and the proposal got 5 more no votes from these states (2 from NY).
Add to this MA, where Nader had a 15-9 delegate lead over McKinney and I don’t see any votes on the proposal from them.
In all due respect, CA may not be “of one mind”, but the total for them so far is 20 No’s -0 yes.
I just have a bad feeling about how this whole thing is going to go down…