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

[Owen Broadhurst]

Massachusetts had six options on its Green-Rainbow primary ballot:
Cobb, Salzman, Glover, Mesplay, write-ins and "no preference".

Our delegation was divided in our best approximation of primary
results. The "no preference" voters were represented by delegates we
deemed "uncommitted". All others delegates were bound throughout each
round until released. Delegates uncommitted or released were free to
vote as their conscience dictated on every round.

Owen Broadhurst


On 4/21/05, peterson@lakeland.ws <peterson@lakeland.ws> wrote:
> On Thu Apr 21  7:37 , "Steve Greenfield"  sent:
>=20
> >I stated several weeks ago that I believe the Green Party needs to produ=
ce 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" optio=
n as
> >far as what to do with NOTA's and/or uncommitteds.
> >
> >Steve Greenfield
>=20
> I agree that NOTA should not be assumed to mean "no candidate". It should=
 be assumed to mean "someone other than
> those listed on the ballot."
>=20
> Where do write-in candidates fit here? If NOTA voters have someone in min=
d, shouldn't they be utilizing that option? And if
> they don't, wouldn't a NOTA-instructed delegate be acting properly if s/h=
e cast a write-in vote in round one?
>=20
> This is another argument for allowing voters the choice of "uncommitted";=
 there's no confusion about whether the voter
> wants to field a candidate; they just aren't sure whom they prefer. To my=
 way of thinking, a delegate instructed as
> uncommitted could still cast a write-in vote for a draft candidate.
>=20
> Someone help me here: Are NOTA and Uncommitted delegates supposed to vote=
 that way in round one?
>=20
> Jeff
> WI