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

[Gary]

I like it, too. I think a ballot given as an example to the states can be really useful in inspiring interest in unknown candidates, providing info on what's expected from the states, and giving a sense of purpose and intent from the GPUS. This intent, more than anything else, should ensure NC isn't seriously considered.

Gary
FL


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Elizabeth Arnone" <elizarnone@comcast.net>
Date:  Tue, 24 May 2005 20:48:04 -0400

>This could be very helpful.  I suggest we include this in our final format.
>
>Liz
>
>
>
>Here's a template:
>
>"A vote for 'No Candidate' means ____________________. If 'No Candidate'
>wins a majority of votes at the convention, then
>_____[this happens]_____.
>
>"A vote for 'None of the Above' means ____________________. If 'None of the
>Above' wins a majority of votes at the
>convention, then _____[this happens]_____.
>
>"A vote for 'Uncommitted' means ____________________. If 'Uncommitted' wins
>a majority of votes at the convention,
>_____[this happens]_____."
>
>We should also probably include some explanation of what it means to abstain
>and what the effect might be if large
>numbers of delegates were to abstain from voting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <peterson@lakeland.ws>
>To: "'NPWG'" <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 4:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Test For Consensus on NOTA and No Candidate
>
>
>Without some clear guidance from the national party, it is possible that
>delegates could arrive at the convention instructed
>to vote NOTA, meaning they want a candidate but are unsatisfied with the
>range of choices available at the time they cast
>their primary or caucus votes. I think a better option would be for them to
>vote Uncommitted, but without some explanation
>from us, the distinction might not be clear.
>
>Again, I think someone smarter than me should tackle the job of defining NC,
>NOTA and Uncommitted for a general Green
>audience, including a few words about the possible ramifications of casting
>a vote for any of them. I know some definitions
>have been tossed out, but it seems they're only functional for some of us.
>
>Here's a template:
>
>"A vote for 'No Candidate' means ____________________. If 'No Candidate'
>wins a majority of votes at the convention, then
>_____[this happens]_____.
>
>"A vote for 'None of the Above' means ____________________. If 'None of the
>Above' wins a majority of votes at the
>convention, then _____[this happens]_____.
>
>"A vote for 'Uncommitted' means ____________________. If 'Uncommitted' wins
>a majority of votes at the convention,
>_____[this happens]_____."
>
>We should also probably include some explanation of what it means to abstain
>and what the effect might be if large
>numbers of delegates were to abstain from voting.
>
>I've changed my mind somewhat on NOTA. I now believe it should be a ballot
>choice (okay, listed on the big screen along
>with the names of the candidates) and that states should be urged to list it
>along with the names of candidates on their
>state ballots. Same with Uncommitted. But I do not think No Candidate should
>enjoy the same status; that, I think, should be
>reserved as a write-in option only.
>
>Jeff Peterson
>Wisconsin
>
>On Tue May 24 13:07 , "Phil Huckelberry"  sent:
>>
>>I'm uncomfortable with the way the NC issue has been framed.  I've been
>>insisting all along that people should be able to vote for whomever they
>>wish, as allowed for by their state party's instructions, and I haven't
>>seen anyone say this is a bad idea.  If you let people vote for whomever
>>they wish, NOTA is no longer a functional choice, so that's thrown out the
>>window.  And then the only remaining question is whether you let people
>>vote for NC or not.
>>
>>Can we consense on not limiting people from voting for whomever they wish,
>>and therefore consense on NOTA being irrelevant, and THEN, once we've
>>decided THAT, talk about No Candidate?  Or at the very least we can hash
>>out this idea of what person-options will be available before tackling
>>NOTA and NC?  It just seems like we're making it waaaaaaay too hard on
>>ourselves.
>>
>>Phil Huckelberry
>>Illinois Green Party
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>