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

[Owen Broadhurst]

In a convention that does NOT have eliminations, and DOES allow for
the nomination of ANYONE at any time, there IS no NOTA problem- for
these circumstances would allow the NOTA delegate to nominate and vote
for someone who was not listed in his state's primary.

Owen Broadhurst

On 4/21/05, Steve Kramer <scooter@guisarme.net> wrote:
> Steve is essentially right here.  There are, as I count it, four ways to
> vote other than voting specifically for one of the listed candidates on
> the ballot:
>=20
> * "uncommitted", which means that you want one of the candidates listed,
> but you aren't sure which or you don't have a strong preference;
>=20
> * "NOTA", which indicates that you want a candidate, but not one of the
> ones listed;
>=20
> * a write-in, which is a specific vote for someone who isn't listed; or
>=20
> * "no candidate", meaning that you do not want the Green Party to field a
> candidate for the position at all.
>=20
> In addition there was also an endorsement option in 2004, which my sense
> is we are not eager to retain.
>=20
> It is up to us to determine which of these we wish to have.  Obviously
> there is some overlap in what some of the choices mean, and we should be
> aware of those when making the decision.
>=20
> Steve K.
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Steve Greenfield wrote:
>=20
> > I realize this may be my private opinion, since I haven't researched it=
s
> > history, but NOTA as I understand it connotes a second-choice by the vo=
ter
> > 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 candida=
tes
> > on this list." It stands to reason, then, that the delegates chosen thr=
ough
> > NOTA votes remain free to vote for someone, as long as it's someone els=
e, a
> > draft candidate.
> >
> > NOTA is therefore not the same as "no candidate" which means that the v=
oter
> > 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 l=
ast
> > 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 option=
s to
> > endorse or abstain on their survey and agree to endorsement as their se=
cond
> > choice. That way we really know whether "No Candidate" Greens want to
> > abstain completely, or if they want the organization to take an elector=
al
> > 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 op=
tion
> > 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 candidat=
es
> > more difficult for those states, and that's probably not our cumulative
> > right to decide for individual states, especially when our own affiliat=
ion
> > rules require that states endeavor to make progress towards achieving b=
allot
> > status. It's weird.
> >
> > I stated several weeks ago that I believe the Green Party needs to prod=
uce 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" opti=
on as
> > far as what to do with NOTA's and/or uncommitteds.
> >
> > Steve Greenfield