Bylaws Proposal: Allow for alternate Presidential nominating method (two flavors)
This was written by Dan Karlan:
The Bylaws specify (Rule 9, paragraph 4) that any candidate for President and Vice-President who submits to the Secretary the signatures of 30 delegates is entitled to formal nomination time in front of the Convention. There is no specification for a form or procedure that must be followed to acquire those signatures or deliver them to the Secretary. At the most recent Nominating Convention, the Secretary received sheets of paper of varied form and content, on which the many signatures were so distributed that it was impossible for the Secretary to vouch for the validity and non-duplication of names. (Important disclaimer: nothing in the previous sentence should be construed as indicating the Secretary doubted the validity of the signatures.) Under prodding of the Secretary, several of us (including members of the Credentials Committee, who might have to implement at least part of one proposed mechanism) have come up with a process that will make the submission of the minimum 30 unique signatures much more susceptible to validation. However, we want to make sure that the mechanism that is adopted is permitted in the Bylaws, beyond challenge.
A variation of this proposal would add a ‘binding’ provision, in which the delegates who offer their signatures for this purpose would at the same time, and by this action, promise to vote for the candidate to whom they offer their signatures, on the first ballot.
The Bylaws specify (Rule 9, paragraph 4) that any candidate for President and Vice-President who submits to the Secretary the signatures of 30 delegates is entitled to formal nomination time in front of the Convention. There is no specification for a form or procedure that must be followed to acquire those signatures or deliver them to the Secretary. At the most recent Nominating Convention, the Secretary received sheets of paper of varied form and content, on which the many signatures were so distributed that it was impossible for the Secretary to vouch for the validity and non-duplication of names. (Important disclaimer: nothing in the previous sentence should be construed as indicating the Secretary doubted the validity of the signatures.) Under prodding of the Secretary, several of us (including members of the Credentials Committee, who might have to implement at least part of one proposed mechanism) have come up with a process that will make the submission of the minimum 30 unique signatures much more susceptible to validation. However, we want to make sure that the mechanism that is adopted is permitted in the Bylaws, beyond challenge.
A variation of this proposal would add a ‘binding’ provision, in which the delegates who offer their signatures for this purpose would at the same time, and by this action, promise to vote for the candidate to whom they offer their signatures, on the first ballot.
posted by genushaha at 12:08 AM
2 Comments:
Sean,
From my perspective, the variation you mentioned at the bottom would have my support. It would take care of the problem of candidates who don't have any support other than their own vote, thereby saving the LP time and money.
Require that the names, addresses, and email addresses of the nominators be placed on the record of the convention, so that if e.g. someone puts in nomination a homophobic antiabortionist drug warrior their credentials to attend future national conventions can be challenged.
They can be lined up with the Libertarians for Bush people, whose credentials to attend future conventions as delegates should be challenged.
Post a Comment
<< Home