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

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:37:06 -0400

I realize this may be my private opinion, since I haven't researched its
history, but NOTA as I understand it connotes a second-choice by the voter
to unbind the delegate for round 2 should NOTA prevail in Round 1. The voter
is essentially saying, "I want a candidate, just not any of the candidates
on this list." It stands to reason, then, that the delegates chosen through
NOTA votes remain free to vote for someone, as long as it's someone else, a
draft candidate.

NOTA is therefore not the same as "no candidate" which means that the voter
is stating they'd rather we sit the election out as far as petitioning
nationwide for our own ballot line candidate. As things were arranged last
year, that left the option of "endorsing" a candidate who is on someone
else's ballot line, but I'm pretty sure that's something we don't want to
preserve unless the surveyed Green voters in each state have the options to
endorse or abstain on their survey and agree to endorsement as their second
choice. That way we really know whether "No Candidate" Greens want to
abstain completely, or if they want the organization to take an electoral
role outside of balloting.

But I'm not really comfortable with this, since "No Candidate" has the
result of costing some states their ballot lines or denying them the option
to gain them if they currently don't have them. This seems to grant the
convention the right to make ballot access for local and state candidates
more difficult for those states, and that's probably not our cumulative
right to decide for individual states, especially when our own affiliation
rules require that states endeavor to make progress towards achieving ballot
status. It's weird.

I stated several weeks ago that I believe the Green Party needs to produce a
candidate at its convention. I still believe that. I'd rather we set up a
"draft from the floor" last-chance mechanism than a "no candidate" option as
far as what to do with NOTA's and/or uncommitteds.

Steve Greenfield

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavitt@hotmail.com>
To: <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] More issues relating to "proportionality".

> 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@lis
ts.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@lis
ts.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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>