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

[Greg Gerritt]

RI sent uncommitted delegates to the 2004 convention.
The state party also gave instructions on how uncommitted delegates could
decide for whom to cast their votes.  State parties should be instructing
their uncommitted delgates on how the decision about whom to vote for gets
made.  greg

> From: <peterson@lakeland.ws>
> Reply-To: peterson@lakeland.ws
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:17:49 -0500
> To: pnp-wg@gp-us.org
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] More issues relating to 'proportionality'.
> 
> On Thu Apr 21  7:37 , "Steve Greenfield"  sent:
> 
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> 
> 
> Where do write-in candidates fit here? If NOTA voters have someone in mind,
> shouldn't they be utilizing that option? And if
> 
> they don't, wouldn't a NOTA-instructed delegate be acting properly if s/he
> cast a write-in vote in round one?
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Someone help me here: Are NOTA and Uncommitted delegates supposed to vote that
> way in round one?
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> WI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg