Blaring Klaxons!!!

Strobing Red Lights!!!


The Law of Unintended Consequences awaits!!!

To Proxy, or,

NOT to Proxy?

To Be, or,

NOT to Be

a LIVING Political PARTY?

This IS the Question!!!

The Proxy-Voting Question is crucial to Taking-Back Our Republican Party from the tyrannical influences grasping her in an iron fist.  I say "iron" fist because, on Saturday, January 27th, we proved it is NOT an unbreakable steel fist!  In fact, we just may have exposed its true composition: "pot metal!"

To set-the-stage, I am pasting here the pertinent sections from the parent Discussion linked below, and posted Tuesday in the Watching the GOP Group:

A third crucial amendment was Letter “N.” This change would have set in the Bylaws the right of each State Committeeman to carry and vote two proxies. Sounds good? Ahh, we could have stopped the proxy abuse that helped the GOPe takeover our Party! Or, could we have?

Maybe we should “do the math:” On Saturday, LD28 had 40 SCs present, who carried 55 proxies, an average of 1.375 proxies per attending SC. Hypothetically, if each LD28 SC present carried 2 proxies, the total SCs represented could be: 40 + (40x2) = 40 + 80 = 120, or, 25 more votes than Saturday—55 proxy votes could increase to 80—Not such a good deal, after all. . . .

So, what can we do?

We can take the time-proven advice of Robert’s Rules of Order: Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies . . . Ordinarily it should neither be allowed nor required, because proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly in which membership is individual, personal, and nontransferable. . . . RONR (11th ed.), Ch.XIII.§45

Also, If any members are absent . . . the members present at a regular or properly called meeting act for the entire membership . . . RONR (11th ed.), Ch. I, §1

Proxy voting is a negative force that, as we have learned, can be used to effect an artificial Majority reigning as tyrants! Because it is incompatible with the principles of Liberty and Self-Governance upon which our Nation under God is founded.

The solution is to end the practice entirely in our Party meetings! With eliminating proxy voting, the Ghost PC problem will also be resolved.

Tabling further action on the Proposed Bylaw Amendments pulled from the consent calendar stopped Amendment Letter “N” making the proxy problem worse!  For context:  "MY PERSPECTIVE: . . . "

• • •

We can find the answer we need in the sage advice of Robert's Rules of Order, as quoted above, and expanded in "Proxy Voting," attached below.  Upon reflection, considering our situation, and recalling the many organizational meetings I have attended since the Second Grade (accompanying our very active Mother!), I now understand the philosophical reason for Robert's long-standing conclusions regarding proxy voting in deliberative assemblies such as political parties—DON'T DO IT!

BACKGROUND:  In the Saturday meeting, as our core team began to pull amendment items off the consent calendar, I was in objective mode, just wanting to help sustain the desire of anyone who wanted an item pulled.—because falsely identifying amendments as "non-controversial and procedural" is wrong—no matter why a member of the Body desires the opportunity to debate and vote on it as an individual proposal.

I did not know the SCs who added Letter "N" to the Bylaw Amendments we pulled off the consent calendar—they suddenly appeared when our core team began to pull items.  I also had not had time to commit all the amendments and their identifying letters to memory.

So, when my LD25 Chairman, Ian Murray, castigated me immediately-after we successfully tabled the remaining proposed amendments, demanding to know why I had killed the "Proxy Amendment," I didn't know it was among them.  [Ian, I don't understand why you apparently were not concerned about any of the other amendments . . . ?]

Learning that it was  "left on the table," I wondered why it had been pulled, when leaving it on the consent calendar would have practically insured its passage.  That was the point of pulling the ones we opposed!  [An operation of the Law of Unintended Consequences?  Did "they" know it would probably pass on the calendar, but, possibly die as a separate preference item?  Or, did they not understand that we were pulling the ones we wanted to oppose, in the hope that we could defeat them?  I don't know. . . .]

While reviewing events, I realized that I needed to do the math!  I saw that allowing any proxies, even if limiting how many an individual can carry and vote, WILL NOT resolve the problem!!!

If unscrupulous people will capitalize-on and abuse a process by individually carrying powers of attorney, commonly called, "proxies," in unlimited numbers, codifying or otherwise enacting "limits" to the process, will just result in more individuals carrying—and voting—their limit.  [If you go fishing, do you go just to catch one fish, or, do you plan to catch the limit?]  The end result, theoretically, will be to maintain or increase proxy use.

So, when one actually analyzes number dynamics with the philosophical base of organizational parliamentary procedure, it becomes clear that Robert's Rules' "stand" is wisdom exemplified: "Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies" 

With this understanding, I knew that, whatever the motives of those who pulled the amendment, the act was a Providential blessing-in-disguise!  I pray we will not err by codifying it as law in the amendment's stead.

TODAY:  It is now Wednesday, January 31st; tomorrow, the AZ House Government Committee meets to hear, and recommend "Do Pass," or reject a bill that would codify two-proxies per person. . . .

As the well-intentioned drums resound the message to pass HB2012 & HB2029, or any other measure that would codify in statute allowing 2 or 1, or any number of proxies carried by one person, we need to stop and, as Ayn Rand would have said, "Check your premises!"

The premises being:  1.  One side wants to be "fair" to the few who have legitimate reasons for not being able to attend in-person, 2.  The other side wants to control as many votes as possible to disenfranchise its opposition—overwhelming them with sheer numbers; not with an honest Majority.

I submit that these premises are caught on the Horns of a False Dilemma—which is a logical fallacy; meaning, it only appears to be a dilemma. Because both premises are illegitimate to the Best-Interest conduct of an organization:

One is false on its face, because it gives one side a tyrannical hold on the entire organization.

The other is not as clear-cut, because the indoctrination of America has been so successful that—as evidenced on a national scale in the illegally present, so-called Dreamers—many of us see "fairness" only as applied to the person(s) who would like to attend, but, due to circumstances can not do so.  We have been stopping there and not remembering that an organization exists to promote and protect the shared interests of the membership—

True fairness in an organization one chooses to form with others, is in protecting the Body—in this case, the AZGOP, and its subsidiaries—from its proceedings and decisions being dominated and controlled by those wielding powers of attorney: many from members who never have any intention to attend and make considered decisions and choices based-upon the deliberations of the assembly.  (I just might be persuaded by a better argument and change my vote! Which an older edition of Robert's Rules of Order posits as one reason deliberative assemblies should NOT vote by proxy!)

Further, IF we codify ANY number of proxies allowed to the members assembled to conduct the group's business, in a misguided attempt at fairness to those members who have legitimate reasons for not attending, we open the door to the unscrupulous taking their initial abuse of the system to greater depths!

Having read a comment on the RTS, AZ Legislature's public participation system, a few minutes ago after posting my own preference on HB2012, I would like to say that I lived in a remote, off-grid, rural location for many years.  Had I been a State Committeeman at the time, I would never have pled for the privilege of sending my proxy with another SC solely because I lived about 190 miles from the meeting venue!  If my 8.6-mile dirt road was knee-deep in snow or mud, I could not have attended unless I planned-ahead and left before the snow or mud rendered my egress impossible!  Then, I might well have sent my power of attorney/proxy with someone else to vote in my name, if they could "get-out."  But, given the Robert's Rules logical argument, I now know that I would consider the integrity of the assembly and forego sending my proxy to the meeting!

It is now clear as I contemplate the ramifications of proxies:  It is practically impossible to expect any other person to truly understand exactly what I would do in every instance in a deliberative setting, to actually vote as would I in every circumstance!  Conversely, it is also impossible for me to truly understand exactly how YOU would vote in every circumstance.

Proxies are appropriate for a meeting in which the issues are set beforehand and communicated to the membership with no debate allowed at the meeting.  They are not appropriate and should never be permitted in a deliberative assembly, such as our AZGOP.

I have posted my position Against HB2012 on the RTS.  I hope you will consider doing the same.  [You can change your position and comment on RTS, should you want to do so.]

For Liberty!


Without Liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist!

LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!

Views: 342


Replies to This Discussion


Proxy voting of ANY kind is contrary to the basic principles of a Democracy or a Republic of supposedly free people.

I have found an ENORMOUS amount of VOTER FRAUD within the list of Maricopa County PC's. Your conclusion

is spot on. Proxy voting should be eliminated. It is just another form of Ballot Harvesting, which is a serious felony

in Arizona. Too bad Bill Montgomery refuses to enforce these RICO ACT LAWS!

I emailed the committee members looking at HB 2012 and quoted the ARS (16-102) that calls out for no power of attorney proxies and requested that they modify the draft bill to allow no proxies, or if a compromise is necessary, no more than one proxy per carrier.  The latter would at least be a start, but zero would be best, and two is too many.

I agree with you, Mike. There should be no proxies just like I can't vote for President of the US with a proxy sent to the polling place with my neighbor.  We are surrounded by states that do not have our unconstitutional proxy voting. One man, One vote should be the rule.

Thanks, Brad & Mike!

And, thanks to Archie Dicksion, Jose Borrajero, all who worked so hard to bring the proxy-voting problem to Reps Ugenti-Rita and Lawrence, and to the latter for bringing their bills to the top of the legislative hopper!

We all just need to realize that Robert's Rules of Order gives us the answer!

And, HB2012 can easily be amended, if the dynamic we and a few others have begun catches fire and the committee members concur!  (If needed, HB2029 can easily be amended, also.)

Your input and action are part of the dynamic starting the snowball rolling down the hill!

At this point, I will prioritize getting my own emails sent to the committee members now!

Oh!  Regarding 16-102, the statute doesn't specify elections and other voting procedures outside government.

HB2012 & HB2029 are bills that amend 16-828, which is the route I would take, but, I would amend them to repeal 16-828, in its entirety.

Thanks again!

For Liberty!


Without liberty, FREEDOM cannot exist!

LIBERTY begins in our own BACKYARD!

I say we push for zero proxies, but be prepared to settle for one but not two if it comes to that in the committee and/or house debates.  But we could still push that this is in the spirit of 16-102, even if not exactly equated to Powers of Attorney.  Think YUGE in the negotiation strategy to repeal and replace 16-828 with either of the two new bills.

I missed this one, Mike.

Sounds good.  You have the concept down.  The two bills would amend 16-828, so, I'm sure that either or both could be amended to repeal instead of adding a limit.  They could theoretically run one as is, if they don't want to amend to repeal tomorrow, and the other could be made a striker to repeal as they move things along, if they recommend "DO PASS" as is, tomorrow.

Couldn't get this one eblasted until tomorrow, so, don't know how much it can help HB2012. . . .

Is two better than 125?  Absolutely.  BUT, zero is better than two.  No question about that either.  I defy anyone to even pretend that they can vote a few proxies, actually representing the positions of those whom surrendered their proxy to them.

Let's be honest here.  The purpose of those who so willingly carry proxies at all, is to increase THEIR owm personal influence in our meetings.  Proxies are not the way to do anything but be a blatant attempt to manipulate meetings by the few.  Period.

If someone is hungry and someone else offers a half loaf of bread, is it smart to take the half loaf or to turn down the offer because it was not perfect?

In the words of a great British philosopher,

“You can't always get what you want but if you try sometime you may find you get what you need” Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones.

I would take the half loaf, get some nourishment, and come back later seeking the other half.

Even though the comment about Jagger was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, the fact is that we all WANT zero proxies. We all agree with the arguments and nothing else will do, but right now we NEED to stop the unlimited use of proxies by a handful of individuals. The argument about more people carrying two proxies each is as bogus as the argument made by Napolitano that if we build a 10 foot fence they will get a 12 foot ladder. It is a hell of a lot harder to carry and use a 12 foot ladder than it is to waltz across the border without a fence. Likewise, 90% of the real proxy problem will be alleviated if HB2012 is enacted. Passing HB2012 will be analogous to forcing the RINO’s to carry a 12 foot ladder. Once we accomplish that, we can come back later for the other 10%.

But why not go for the whole thing now and solve 100% of the problem instead of fooling around with a partial solution which will mean having to go through the whole process again later?

Those who ask that question are not aware of two important facts:

Fact #1: Our surveys have revealed that a significant number of people who wish to limit proxy use do not want a total prohibition, but instead prefer the two-proxy limit. We need their support in order to solve 90% of the problem.

Fact #2: Even more important, the AZ legislature is no longer solid red. We are solid purple and heavily leaning toward blue. In the House we have a very thin, 31-29 conservative majority when it comes to important issues because 5 Republicans consistently join Democrats in an effort to defeat conservative measures. In the Senate the picture is grimmer because we are already solid blue. Three Republican senators consistently vote with Democrats to give us a 14-16 MINORITY when it comes to important conservative issues. None of this is BS. We have the records to prove that it is all true.

Therefore, under current conditions it will be a miracle if we get both legislative chambers and the governor to go for a two-proxy limit. It is undeniably true that we will fail miserably if we go for what we really want, which is zero proxies.

Those who are opposing HB2012 are hurting the cause and they should stop.

Point taken.  FWIW, I am not against HB2012.  Though I still don't believe it is enough.  Even so, I will not oppose getting the half a loaf.  No doubt, what happened last Saturday would be much, much harder to pull off with HB2012 in place.

 I find it amazing that some of the people  on here are opposing HB2012. The argument is that we need to have someone amend the Bill to permit zero proxies otherwise it is not worth the effort because it will not cure the problem. Over this past summer and fall there were precious few of you that were visiting the members of the House and Senate with me urging the amendment to limit proxies. If you had, you would have quickly become aware of the fact that very few of them want to stick their neck out to support any kind of limitation. Good luck on getting one of them to sponsor an amendment to eliminate proxies altogether.

Now the question becomes, would you rather have our current unlimited proxies or a limit of only 2 proxies? If you persist and are successful in defeating HB 2012 then for at least 10 years, you will not be able to get any legislator to sponsor any legislation to limit proxy use. Further you will have absolutely no success in amending the AZGOP bylaws to limit proxy use.

Here are some thoughts

Unlimited use:

1 person appears with 15 proxies - 16 total votes cast - 15 proxy votes  - 1 warm body in a seat at the meeting

2 proxy limit

5 people appear with 2 proxies each total votes cast 15 - 10 proxy votes   5 warm bodies in a seat the meeting. (we are achieving at least one of our objectives and that is a larger physical turn out)

Last thought. HB2012 states you cannot carry more than 2 proxies. It does not prevent the LD, County or State from amending the bylaws to permit less.

It is time to get real and withdraw your objection to the Bill and to give it your full support.

Archie, it is you who has done the walking and the very important talking on this issue.  Although I do agree with the concept of Zero Proxies, it is obvious that that dog won't hunt on today's political landscape.  So, in the interest of moving the ball toward the End Zone, I suggest we all get on board with you and get this done -NOW!  And maybe it's time we disband the circular firing squad.

My question is this, if proxies are only allowed to be carried by a Republican from your own precinct wether or not they are an elected PC how many of these precincts have 30 or more PCs' in them. I keep thinking that these people with that many must be carrying other than their own precinct members votes. Am I wrong? I think the fraud must reside with the people who are doing the checkin and validating the credentials.





NOTE:  Blog posts cannot be blasted to the membership.  Post in Opinions if you want your post to be blasted out.

Post on the correct tab that matches your topic.

Keep it brief and to the point.

Use the proper spelling and punctuation.

Please include the link to your source for the information you post.

Do not attack your fellow conservatives.

If you wouldn't say it to your mother, think twice before saying it here.

Follow these rules!


Suppose the earth and its inhabitants exist in order to identify just what causes mankind continually to suffer so many troublesome problems and afflictions.



© 2023   Created by Arizona Freedom Alliance.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service