[Pnp-wg] Proxy question

[Elizabeth Arnone]

My opinion is that proxies are necessary no matter how you slice it, and I
think many agree.  The question is how to make them as honest as possible.

Also, perhaps the medium sized convention would be a partial solution to the
travel problem as well as possibly holding conventions near states with the
largest delegations - on a rotational basis.  This could cut a large chunk
of travel for the greatest number of people,  and also help with funding
those who still need the help.

Liz








----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:37 PM
Subject: [Pnp-wg] Proxy question


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Phil Huckelberry" <phil@mcleancountygreens.org>
> To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] More issues relating to "proportionality".
>
>
> > Finally, in what I see as a related matter, I still strongly oppose
> > proxies on a number of grounds, but I especially oppose the carrying of
> > "uncommitted" proxies.  There were clearly people casting double votes
> > last year because they were "holding proxies" which were actually
> > uncommitteed proxies, and I'd be shocked if everyone here didn't have a
> > serious problem with that.
> >
> > Phil Huckelberry
> > Illinois Green Party
>
> Sorry I was out of town for the early proxy discussion, I'll have to go
back
> and read all of them.
>
> Proxy abuse should be controlled, but not at the expense of the necessary
> purpose served by proxies. This is a big country, and not all of us live
> within cycling distance of Milwaukee. Unless GPUS is providing full travel
> reimbursement, on-site childcare, and 24-hour home assistance for any
> spouses and children left behind, you're going to have to allow proxy
> voting. This is the Green Party, and even though proxies can be abused, we
> cannot make the ability to cast votes at the convention contingent upon
> having enough money, time, and family leave to cast those votes.
Limitation
> is a solution. Elimination is not.
>
> My wife sees me at meetings, walking my town, and sitting here in front of
> my computer working on Green Party stuff day and night. At least once a
day
> she asks me how my fundraising is going for Oklahoma City. I don't have an
> answer yet. We can't afford it. OKC is not a hub city. It costs more and
> takes longer to fly there than if I was going to the Pacific coast. I have
> three kids aged 4 and under and two of the convention days are workdays
for
> my wife, not that she could (or should) handle all three of them alone for
> 3-4 days even if she could take the days off. What is the GPUS solution to
> this? Perhaps someone can put me in contact with Richard Mazess. I'm sure
> he'll lend a hand.
>
> Okay, that was sarcastic, but it illustrates my point. The "whoever has
the
> most resources casts the most votes" approach has no place in Green Party
> conduct. Some compromise position that reduces abuse without eliminating
> proxies will have to be reached.
>
> Steve Greenfield
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>