Well, I won't be voting for any delegate that publishes a "slate" of other delegates to vote for. Delegates should be campaigning for the approval of shareholders not campaigning for the approval of a cabal of other delegates who all add each other to their slates.
I encourage any shareholder that cares about this stuff for the long term to take the same stance.
Cabals are going to happen with or without slates.
I can see by including this function, it might quickly encourage someone to provide a slate "service". Someone who does thorough research into delegates and has strict standards of accountability/transparency. concentrating the effort to find the best, most reliable parties to be made delegates into 1 person/group so that we, lazy users, don't need to bother with it. Because most of us won't anyway. It leaves the average user who's even slightly interested in voting with a much smaller burden of inspecting a hand-full of slate servicers, rather than a countless myriad of delegates. Of course, for those of us who wish to do the research ourselves are free to do so, and might even lean on these slate servicers to help pick and choose our own delegates who are up to our standards/interests.
I don't see how not having slates prevents people from forming their own manual slates anyway if that's what they want/serves their interest.
I would rather say, I won't be supporting a slate/slate provider that's full of members all representing a cabal. I'm interested in seeing a slate that's highly diverse representing a wide variety of groups from all over the globe with a diverse representation of interests. All of which can be tracked and varified. It will be up to these slate servicers to provide a clear, thorough, and professional representation of proposed delegates to earn my trust in using that slate or some protion of it.