[Pnp-wg] Outline of options
Forrest Hill
forrest_hill@comcast.net
Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:37:53 -0700
Hi All,
I am sorry I have missed a lot of the discussion. I think the outline
that Steve Kramer has put together, however, does a great job of
capturing a lot of the ideas put forward on this list. I have a couple
of comments related to these ideas:
1. Voting Methods
A. In terms of "Voting Methods" before the convention, I support the
state primary/caucus option. I believe that IRV would not only be
difficult to implement, but would greatly reduce voter turnout. For IRV
to work we would have to get an IRV ballot to each Green and have them
send it to a designated committee who would count the ballots and
transfer votes (seems pretty impractical).
B. The role of the GPUS in the primary/caucus process should be to:
- Insist that all state parities that can legally hold primaries do so
- Assist states holding caucuses to increase voter participation
- Certify that in caucus states best efforts were made to contact
members and encourage them to vote
- Report the number of members casting votes in each state primary/caucus
2. Representative Democracy
Determining a method for fairly allocating delegates is probably the
most important decision this group has to make. I agree with Steve
Kramer that what ever methods are use should translate across all
states. I do not, however, agree that population is a useful or fair
method for determining party membership size.
As I have stated earlier, we can have representative democracy in the
Green Party by using quantitative measures determine the "percent" of
delegates allocated to each state. Using Steve K.'s reasoning that these
measures should translate across all states, I proposed the following 5
criteria to estimate membership size in each state:
1. The number of local and statewide Green Candidates that ran for
office in each state during the next election cycle (2004 - 2008) as a
"percentage" of the total number of local and statewide Green Candidates
that ran for office (2004 - 2008)
2. The number of "votes cast" for local and statewide Green Candidates
in each state (2004 - 2008) as a "percentage" of the total number of
votes cast for local and statewide Green Candidates
3. Number of Green Office Holders in each state (2008) as a "percentage"
of the total number of Green Office Holders
4. Number of votes cast for Cobb and Nader in each state (2004) as a
"percentage" of the total number of votes for Cobb-Nader
5. Number of votes cast in the 2008 primary/caucus in each state as a
"percentage" of the total number of votes cast in all state
primaries/caucuses.
If we were to weight each of these factors equally, then all that is
required to determine the size of a states delegation is to calculate
the mean value of these criteria. For example, if the values of these
criteria in state X are 3%, 2.7%, 6%, 1%, and 3.2%, then State X would
be alloted 3.2% of the total number of delegates. Thus if we decide the
delegation size should be 500 then state X would get 16 delegates.
(Note, for fractional delegates we could employ the Method of Equal
Proportions - also know as the Huntington Hill Method [no relation] - to
arrive at whole numbers. This is the rounding method used by the US to
round off seat appropriations for congress).
I believe these criteria will not only help us fairly assess membership
size, but also create incentives for more states parties to becoming
proactive in recruiting local candidates to run and conducting local
campaigns. After all, that's where the rubber meets the road....
Forrest
Steve Greenfield wrote:
>Steve: It's hard to just rank this stuff with numbers or by just checking
>the boxes. I hope this doesn't make your job any more miserable than it
>already must be. In each case my answer is BELOW the question. In cases
>where answers are missing, that means I have no response at this time.
>
>SG
>
> Voting Methods
>
>
>>>I. Direct Democracy methods
>>> A. Nationwide (single-primary) options
>>> 1. Nationwide IRV, GPUS credentials each Green (IOW, national
>>> definition of "Green")
>>>
>>>
>This is the best, so I'll make it my top choice, but it's the hardest to
>implement.
>
>
>
>>> 2. Nationwide IRV, state credentials each Green
>>> a. GPUS accepts automatically
>>> b. GPUS may:
>>> i. review
>>> ii. require verification
>>> iii. weight the results
>>>
>>>
>
>This will be my third choice, provided that b (i,ii & iii) are all included
>
>
>
>
>>> 3. Nationwide, other voting method (plurality, Borda, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>not interested
>
>
>
>>> B. State primary options
>>> 1. States conduct separate primaries, state determines method
>>> a. GPUS accepts automatically
>>> b. GPUS may:
>>> i. review
>>> ii. require verification
>>> iii. weight the results
>>>
>>>
>This would be my second choice, with b (i, ii & iii)
>
>
>
>>> 2. States conduct separate primaries, GPUS determines single
>>>
>>>
>method
>
>
>>> (such as "IRV required")
>>>
>>>
>
>I could see this only if "except where prevented by law" is added. With the
>addition it could be my 4th choice.
>
>
>
>>> C. Local caucus options
>>> 1. Locals credential Greens (state may assist when Greens are not
>>> members of Locals)
>>> 2. State credentials Greens (both have same options as above)
>>>
>>>
>
>Nope.
>
>
>
>>>II. Representative Democracy methods
>>> A. Delegate apportionment (any or all of the following factors may
>>>
>>>
>be
>
>
>>> considered)
>>> 1. State population
>>>
>>>
>
>Nope.
>
>
>
>>> 2. Green registration (in those states which have it)
>>>
>>>
>Yes
>
>
>
>>> 3. Vote for Presidential candidates
>>> a. Nader, 1996
>>> b. Nader, 2000
>>> c. Cobb, 2004
>>> d. Nader, 2004
>>>
>>>
>
>b, c & d combined. (report on this total coming soon, I think you'll like
>it.)
>
>
>
>>> 4. Vote for Green candidate in statewide race
>>>
>>>
>Only as substitute when Presidential total not available
>
>
>
>>> 5. Vote for Green candidate in significant local (non-statewide)
>>> race
>>>
>>>
>Nope
>
>
>
>>> 6. Minimum number of delegates
>>>
>>>
>One
>
>
>
>>> B. Delegate credentialling
>>> 1. State-determined, GPUS may not challenge
>>>
>>>
>Nope
>
>
>
>>> 2. State-determined, GPUS may require:
>>> a. Green registered (or equivalent) only
>>> b. Other requirements
>>>
>>>
>Yes.
>
>
>
>>> C. Delegate voting methods
>>> 1. Balloting
>>> a. By round
>>> i. no elimination
>>> ii. elimination of last candidate in each round
>>> iii. other elimination method (candidate count, vote
>>> threshold, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>
>>> b. IRV
>>> i. ballots may exhaust
>>>
>>>
>Yes
>
>
>
>>> ii. ballots may not exhaust; ranking of all candidates is
>>> required
>>>
>>>
>Only if NOTA is one of the choices that can be ranked.
>
>
>
>>> iii. another elimination method (candidate count, vote
>>> threshold, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>
>>> c. Another method (plurality, Borda, Condorcet, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>
>>> 2. NOTA as an option (yes/no)
>>>
>>>
>Yes
>
>
>
>>> a. NOTA re-opens nominations if selected
>>> i. ...and candidates may re-enter (yes/no)
>>> b. NOTA forces runoff if selected
>>>
>>>
>Yes
>
>
>
>>> 3. "no candidate" as an option (yes/no)
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>>> a. ...and does not eliminate as an option (yes/no)
>>>
>>>
>If chosen as our method, it should not eliminate. I prefer it NOT be the
>method.
>
>
>
>>> 4. Candidate must accept (yes/no)
>>>
>>>
>Yes
>
>
>
>>> a. ...and be present (yes/no)
>>>
>>>
>No.
>
>
>
>>> 5. Separate "endorsement" vote (yes/no)
>>>
>>>
>Yes, if NOTA wins runoff and no candidate emerges
>
>
>
>>> D. "Binding" of delegates
>>> 1. State-determined
>>> a. ...for all choices, if IRV
>>> b. ...for first choice only, if IRV
>>>
>>>
>Nope
>
>
>
>>> 2. State-determined, multiple rounds
>>>
>>>
>Nope
>
>
>
>>> 3. State-determined, all rounds
>>>
>>>
>Nope
>
>
>
>>> 4. GPUS-determined, one round only
>>> a. ...for all choices, if IRV
>>> b. ...for first choice only, if IRV
>>>
>>>
>Yes for (b)
>
>
>
>>> 5. GPUS-determined, multiple rounds
>>> 6. GPUS-determined, all rounds
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>> E. Proxy voting
>>>
>>>
>Yes
>
>
>
>>> 1. No proxies allowed
>>>
>>>
>Nope. Proxies should be allowed
>
>
>
>>> 2. One proxy per delegate allowed
>>>
>>>
>First choice
>
>
>
>>> 3. Multiple proxies per delegate allowed
>>>
>>>
>second choice
>
>
>
>>> 4. "Arrangements" allowed
>>> a. Teleconferencing
>>>
>>>
>Yes
>
>
>
>>> b. Verified instructions
>>>
>>>
>Yes
>
>
>
>>> c. "replacement" Greens credentialed
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>
>>>Vice-President
>>>
>>>I. VP is part of the ticket
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>
>>> A. VP nominated along with President
>>> B. President may not announce a VP before a certain
>>>
>>>
>time/circumstance
>
>
>>> C. Convention/election has an accept/reject option
>>>
>>>
>If this wins out, C is necessary.
>
>
>
>>>II. VP is elected separately
>>> A. Candidate may not stand for President and VP
>>>
>>>
>Yes.. VP can be the candidate's 2nd choice after losing Pres.
>
>
>
>>> B. Candidate may announce as VP only after elimination from
>>> Presidential ballot (i.e. "on the floor")
>>>
>>>
>Yes, but may state intent ahead of time.
>
>
>
>>> C. Candidate may stand for both President and VP
>>>
>>>
>No. First one, then the other if Pres bid fails.
>
>
>
>
>>>Floor rules
>>>
>>>I. Rules of conduct
>>> A. Determined in advance by CC; may not be changed on the floor
>>>
>>>
>No.
>
>
>
>>> B. Determined in advance by CC; some rules may be changed (list of
>>> which specific ones)
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>
>>> C. Determined in advance by CC; may be changed on the floor
>>>
>>>
>(specific
>
>
>>> instructions as to how)
>>>
>>>
>Yes
>
>
>
>>>II. Speeches
>>> A. Determined in advance by CC; may not be changed on the floor
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>
>>> B. Determined in advance by CC; may be changed
>>> 1. by the SC
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>
>>> 2. by the facilitators
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>
>>> 3. by acclamation
>>>
>>>
>No. Majority is sufficient.
>
>
>>> C. Determined by the facilitators or on floor
>>> 1. Specific set of rules
>>>
>>>
>Majority vote
>
>
>>> 2. Facilitators' discretion
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>>> D. Rules may be different for different portions of the Convention
>>>
>>>
>No
>
>
>>>Convention date
>>>
>>>I. Specific date
>>> A. before June
>>>
>>>
>My first choice, if possible based on primary method chosen.
>
>
>
>>> B. early-to-mid June
>>>
>>>
>2nd choice
>
>
>
>>> C. late June
>>>
>>>
>3rd and last choice
>
>
>
>>> D. early July
>>>
>>>
>no
>
>
>
>>> E. mid-to-late July
>>>
>>>
>no
>
>
>
>>> F. after July
>>>
>>>
>no
>
>
>
>>>II. Based on other factors
>>>
>>>
>no.
>
>
>
>>> A. Before first ballot access drive
>>>
>>>
>I'm aware of one that's way too early.
>
>
>
>>> B. Based on Republican/Democratic Conventions
>>> C. Other criteria
>>>
>>>Convention size
>>>
>>>I. less than 500 delegates
>>>
>>>
>First choice
>
>
>
>>>II. 500-750 delegates
>>>
>>>
>2nd Choice
>
>
>
>>>III. 750-1000 delegates
>>>
>>>
>no
>
>
>
>>>IV. more than 1000 delegates
>>>
>>>
>no
>
>
>
>>>Other questions
>>>
>>>= Vegetarian/vegan options for food
>>>
>>>
>yes
>
>
>
>>>= Decor of the hall
>>>
>>>
>Whoa. Are we getting into flag-waving questions here? My sense is that I
>hope we can make our patriotism evident without using the same symbol
>stenciled onto bombs that drop on civilians in nations that did not provoke
>us. I'm anti-pandering. Anyone who doesn't vote for our candidate on
>Election Day because there weren't enough flags visible at the convention is
>someone who was never going to vote for us anyway. I don't reject the idea
>of having an American flag in the room or on the stage or even right
>alongside the podium, but I don't want it to be a theme like it is for the
>other parties, something that's in the frame no matter which way the cameras
>turn. That would be awful.
>
>Steve Greenfield
>
>
>>>--
>>> Steve Kramer || scooter (at) guisarme dot net
>>>
>>>
>>||
>>
>>
>>> _____________________
>>>
>>>
>>===================================================
>>
>>
>>> | __/^\__ ,-^,| BUSH NUCLEAR OSAMA 9/11 TERRORIST AL-QAEDA
>>>
>>>
>>ANTHRAX
>>
>>
>>> |/~ \_ { / |
>>> \/\ |! | ...and I'd like to wish a warm hello to
>>> / / ) |___ all my fans in domestic surveillance!
>>> (_ \ \ /
>>> ~v^ ?_,-' MARTYR ISRAEL JIHAD WHITE HOUSE SADDAM
>>>
>>>
>SECRET
>
>
>>CIA
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Pnp-wg mailing list
>>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pnp-wg mailing list
>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>
>
>