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

[peterson@lakeland.ws]

On Thu Apr 21  7:37 , "Steve Greenfield"  sent:=0D
=0D
>I stated several weeks ago that I believe the Green Party needs to produce=
 a=0D
>candidate at its convention. I still believe that. I'd rather we set up a=
=0D
>"draft from the floor" last-chance mechanism than a "no candidate" option =
as=0D
>far as what to do with NOTA's and/or uncommitteds.=0D
>=0D
>Steve Greenfield=0D
=0D
I agree that NOTA should not be assumed to mean "no candidate". It should b=
e assumed to mean "someone other than =0D
those listed on the ballot."=0D
=0D
Where do write-in candidates fit here? If NOTA voters have someone in mind,=
 shouldn't they be utilizing that option? And if =0D
they don't, wouldn't a NOTA-instructed delegate be acting properly if s/he =
cast a write-in vote in round one?=0D
=0D
This is another argument for allowing voters the choice of "uncommitted"; t=
here's no confusion about whether the voter =0D
wants to field a candidate; they just aren't sure whom they prefer. To my w=
ay of thinking, a delegate instructed as =0D
uncommitted could still cast a write-in vote for a draft candidate.=0D
=0D
Someone help me here: Are NOTA and Uncommitted delegates supposed to vote t=
hat way in round one? =0D
=0D
Jeff=0D
WI=0D
=0D
=0D