[Pnp-wg] Test For Consensus on NOTA and No Candidate

[Gary]

For those who oppose NOTA, may I offer a different scenario?

Let's say we have a write-in capability. 51 states all write in different people, and NO votes go to the candidates on the ballot. Where do we go from there?

With NOTA, especially in later rounds, it would allow for Phil's "dark horse" candidate tostart circulating, and perhaps consensus could be received. NOTA is a common factor that allows dissatisfaction with the slate to be cohesively demonstrated.

Gary
FL


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Elizabeth Arnone" <elizarnone@comcast.net>
Date:  Mon, 16 May 2005 23:50:22 -0400

>I think Gary makes a good point.
>
>> Neither of these issues should arise if we have good candidates, and a
>well informed membership. We need to respect other opinions, however, and I
>don't see how we can leave NOTA and No Candidate OFF of any ballot.
>
>
>I think one of our biggest problems in 2004 was "good candidate".   The
>people whom the exploratory committee would have liked to run for us didn't
>want us.  And we just didn't have anyone in our own ranks to fit the bill.
>If we were able to produce a really good candidate perhaps a lot of the
>problems that followed may not have happened.
>
>And, that may be a problem again in 2008.  We can agree to disagree on this
>one but if Cobb has any intention of representing the Greens in 2008, I'm
>outta here.  He is not my idea of a "good candidate", and he'll just squash
>any chances of the Greens to unify again, but we'll get to that later.
>
>If we're going to run someone, that candidate has to be a strong contender.
>I don't see the point of supporting just anyone to have someone on the
>ballot.  I want our candidate to be someone I can actually see sitting in
>the White House.
>
>And that would be my reason for NOTA and No Candidate to be on the ballot.
>
>I also felt people were confused with the whole favorite sons and daughters
>votes and being able to give their votes to someone else.
>
>Again, I know there's going to be some issues with this, but I think it also
>needs to be addressed.
>
>In the event we are not able to field a really good candidate of our own,
>and one of the other third parties comes up with someone better than we do,
>we need to consider the "endorsement" scenario.
>
>I agree we should never ever support one of the two major parities'
>candidates, but if there were a worthy 3rd candidate, I would still like the
>option of endorsing that person.
>
>Liz
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Charlie" <oldbogus@ris.net>
>To: <hecker@ecoisp.com>
>Cc: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:25 PM
>Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Test For Consensus on NOTA and No Candidate
>
>
>> At a convention, NC and NOTA would be the same. NOTA defaults to NC if it
>wins.
>>
>> I agree NC should be a [bad] choice.
>>
>> Charlie Green
>> GPCO
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>> >
>> > Here's another one:
>> >
>> > Some swing states, such as FL, showed significant support for No
>Candidate. While I personally disagree with this philosophy, to fairly and
>accurately represent the membership, No Candidate should be on any GPUS
>ballot. The leadership can, of course, express its desire to run a full out
>campaign, and encourage members to help select a good candidate rather than
>sit out the election.
>> >
>> > Same with NOTA.
>> >
>> > Neither of these issues should arise if we have good candidates, and a
>well informed membership. We need to respect other opinions, however, and I
>don't see how we can leave NOTA and No Candidate OFF of any ballot.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Gary
>> > FL
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>