[Pnp-wg] More issues relating to "proportionality".

Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:36:45 -0700

I disagree, I think it is an entirely valid choice. In essence, you're 
reserving the right for the representatives of your state to make a 
decision, based on their best judgement, at a later time, once the situation 
has further developed. Perhaps even hoping that a better choice will 
emerge... if NOTA is an option, and first round preferences are binding, 
what do we do when NOTA wins the first round of voting with a majority? 
Wouldn't that essentially make all delegates uncommitted at that point, and 
require selection of an entirely unknown candidate not voted on by a single 
person in a primary? Or do we simply abandon the idea of running a 
presidential candidate under those circumstances... I can totally envision a 
situation in which NOTA without "uncommitted" as an option has this result.

Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
--
Thomas Leavitt -- thomasleavitt@hotmail.com, Sr. Systems Admin For Hire
Resume at http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/resume/

Wired since 1981. Internet-enabled since 1990. Web-enabled since 1993. 
Older, wiser, and poorer, post-crash. :)

>From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
>To: <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
>Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] More issues relating to "proportionality".
>Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:02:54 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from greens.org ([216.27.184.14]) by mc3-f39.hotmail.com with 
>Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:06:02 -0700
>Received: (qmail 25428 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2005 01:06:04 -0000
>Received: from localhost (HELO petra-k.cagreens.org) (127.0.0.1)  by 
>localhost with SMTP; 21 Apr 2005 01:06:04 -0000
>Received: (qmail 25354 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2005 01:04:27 -0000
>Received: from pop-a065d19.pas.sa.earthlink.net (207.217.121.253)  by 
>cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 21 Apr 2005 01:04:27 -0000
>Received: from user-12lcq9s.cable.mindspring.com ([69.86.105.60] 
>helo=D6LB1711)by pop-a065d19.pas.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 
>#10)id 1DOQ7F-0004oW-00for pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 
>18:04:25 -0700
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEt48vypDtpRdGWWu9VZnRT8xLEHoh402Y=
>Return-Path: <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
>Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>References: <BE8C6817.3C203%gerritt@mindspring.com>
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
>Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org
>X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:pnp-wg-request@lists.gp-us.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg>,<mailto:pnp-wg-request@lists.gp-us.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: list for working group, nominating process 
><pnp-wg.lists.gp-us.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg>,<mailto:pnp-wg-request@lists.gp-us.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/pnp-wg/>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Apr 2005 01:06:02.0675 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[49833830:01C5460E]
>
>Uncommitted is not the same thing as NOTA. NOTA means you are not 
>supporting
>any of the candidates listed. It is an affirmative choice. Uncommitted 
>means
>you don't know or care enough to support one over the others, but you do
>expect one of them to be the nominee. It could perhaps be re-labeled "One 
>of
>the above." Very different.
>
>Uncommitted is a pretty dicey concept and it shouldn't be part of our
>recommendations. Just because a primary voter is uncommitted doesn't mean
>the delegate is. The voter is not a delegate mind-reader. Is the delegate
>uncommitted? How do we know? Is one delegate slightly leaning one way,
>another in a different way, and another still actually completely 
>undecided?
>Is all that information in the ballot booth for the voters to really know
>what they're choosing?
>
>The problem is the uncommitted delegate is going to cast a vote for a
>candidate, and the uncommitted voter has no way of knowing at what point in
>the process the delegate becomes/became committed. By definition an
>uncommitted delegate cannot convey the wish of the voters. The voters are
>not even specifically stating "I trust you to weigh the pros and cons and 
>do
>the right thing." The voters don't know a darned thing about the 
>uncommitted
>delegates. The delegates have not campaigned to show voters their total 
>lack
>of commitment or their history of excellent judgment -- they're just names
>on a list. It opens the door to a scenario where candidates are given
>incentive to spend time identifying supporters who can keep their mouths
>shut, and getting them to run as "uncommitted."
>
>If state law requires some states to have space for uncommitted, that's how
>it goes until you can get the law changed, but it shouldn't be Green Party
>policy.
>
>Steve Greenfield
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
>To: <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:23 PM
>Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] More issues relating to "proportionality".
>
>
> > RI primaries have a slot for uncommitted and in the RI primary there wsa 
>a
> > significant vote for uncommitted in 2004, which we reflected with our
> > delegation to the convention.  greg
> >
> > > From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavitt@hotmail.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:16:35 -0700
> > > To: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> > > Subject: [Pnp-wg] More issues relating to "proportionality".
> > >
> > > I was thinking about the issue of how a state would determine the
>sympathies
> > > of Greens at a grassroots level, and the following occured to me:
> > >
> > > In states where primary elections are held, does the Green Party have
>the
> > > option (legally) of putting "uncommitted" or "NOTA" on the ballot? I
>know in
> > > California, that we can't do NOTA, and I'm pretty sure we can't do
> > > "uncommitted" either. States that don't do government administered
>primaries
> > > or that use caucuses would not run into this problem. The result would
>tend
> > > to skew the results against folks who prefer "uncommitted" and NOTA
> > > positions - what if these positions pulled 25-33% of the vote in all
>other
> > > states but those with state-administered primary elections? The result
>could
> > > hardly be called democratic? Should we encourage states with this type
>of
> > > primary to poll their members, and adjust the resulting figures from
>their
> > > primary elections?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Leavitt -- thomasleavitt@hotmail.com, Sr. Systems Admin For 
>Hire
> > > Resume at http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/resume/
> > >
> > > Wired since 1981. Internet-enabled since 1990. Web-enabled since 1993.
> > > Older, wiser, and poorer, post-crash. :)
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pnp-wg mailing list
>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg