Hello all! Comments interspersed:
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoth Jon: > > ----- > It amazes me how some members of this list cling to the proposition > that the deletion of most of the Platform was an act of deliberation. > ----- > > There are two possible explanations for the deletion of most of the > platform: > > 1) The deletion of most of the platform represented the clearly > expressed intent of the majority of delegates; or > > 2) Some large portion of the delegates failed to discharge their > responsibilities AS delegates. > > Your explanation indicates that it was the latter: > > ----- > Conference organizers neglected to print copies of the Platform and > distribute them with the conference packet. ... Attendees weren't > going to vote for what they didn't have in writing in their hands. > ----- > > I'm about to engage in some reasonable speculation here. If you find > any of the factual assertions I'm about to make unreasonable, I guess > I'll have to research the delegate lists to prove or disprove them. > > 1. I assert that most of the delegates to the national convention were > not new members of the LP who had never seen the platform. Most, but certainly not all. Many of them, however has only been to one or two. It was my 11th business convention. > > 2. I assert that a large percentage, and perhaps a majority, of the > delegates to the national convention were not first-time delegates, > and had in fact, to varying degrees, helped craft, and ratified the > planks of, the platform in PREVIOUS conventions. Which means that a large minority, perhaps a majority, were in fact first time delegates. The case of my own delegation, Washington, is extreme due to the fact that our delegates lived within four hours driving distance. But of 42 accredited delegates only eight had previously attended a National Convention and of those two, Dave Bergland and his wife Sharon Ayres, were only there for Dave to sign books at the Advocates booth. > > 3. I assert that a large percentage, and perhaps a majority, of the > delegates to the national convention were people who have run for > public office on the Libertarian ballot line before and/or worked on > the campaigns of candidates running for public office on the > Libertarian ballot line, and/or held leadership positions in their > local or state LPs or in the national organization -- people, in other > words, who have had to know the platform (if for no other reason to > defend themselves against the attacks based on it that the LRC loves > to yell about). > > I have to conclude that the idea that this particular group of people > voted to delete sections of the platform -- a platform which they had > CREATED, AMENDED and REPEATEDLY RATIFIED over a number of previous > national conventions (I am absolutely certain that some of the > delegates there have been delegates to every, or nearly every, > national convention since 1972) -- because they didn't know what was > in there, is absurd. There were very few "old timers" in Portland. The only 1972 delegate there was Tonie Nathan, who now I believe is the only member to have attended every convention. Portland was amazing for who did not attend, not who did. Dave Nolan wasn't there. Barb Goushaw and Fred Collins weren't there. Michael Cloud and Carla Howell weren't there. MG wasn't there. Out of 20 people elected to the Platform Committee, we only had 14 show up after all the alternates were seated. > > I just don't find it believable that someone who was willing to spend > hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dollars to get to Portland, rent a > hotel room, etc., in order to participate in the convention would > think of "I didn't get a free copy of the platform printed at the > party's expense" as a reason to tear down 34 years of their own > parliamentary work. > > In fact, if that was a factor at all, I think it would go the other > way: "I don't have the platform in front of me, but I know that it has > been built over the course of 16 previous national conventions, some > of which I participated in myself. Without the text in front of me, I > am not going to just start ripping into it -- I'd rather leave it as > it is than change it without knowing for certain the nature and impact > of the changes I'd be making." > > Or a third way: "Bill, you have your laptop, right? Could you get > online, pull up the platform and print out a few copies so that our > delegation can see what it is we're voting on here?" > > Now, I agree with you that there was not some secret, evil conspiracy > responsible for what happened. One of the factions involved was quite > up-front about what they wanted to do (and they got some of it done, > and didn't get some of it done). Others agree with them on some > things, disagreed with them on others, etc. No secret, evil conspiracy > was necessary (there may have been one or more, but I don't see any > real evidence of that in this particular case). > > My conclusion is that the majority of delegates expressed their REAL > preferences in an imperfect but workable parliamentary environment. > Where individual or factional preferences coincided to produce > majorities for deletion, planks were deleted. Where individual or > factional preferences coincided to produce majorities for retention, > planks were retained. Yes, it came out looking like a mess to a lot of > us, but that often happens in parliamentary actions. There has been a vote of about 20 to 30 percent in favor of eliminating the Platform over the last few conventions. It spiked in Indianapolis when there was a campaign led by Mike Dixon to toss the whole thing. But that core has been there. Now add the newcomers mentioned by Jon Roland, the Reform Caucus advocating mass rejection, and few respected activists to advise against a rash act like this and the perfect storm was achieved. Just to be picky, this was not a "parlimentary" procedure. Voting on bedsheet ballots may be "democratic," but it is not part of parlimentary procedure which would require a motion to delete a plank with the appropriate debate allowed. There was no "conspiracy" here, just a lot of factors which happened to coincide. All the best! Greg ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
