Clarification and back on topic, was Re: [Pnp-wg] Protecting the Grassroots role in delegate selection

[Owen Broadhurst]

Folks should know that I have yet to consult the GRP regarding this
precise question, and shall do so- but expect support for my position.

I will not block consensus on NOTA should folks truly be wed to this-=20

I just do not understand it. I object to a group of candidates on a
ballot, I write a name in. If convention delegates do not appreciate
the current crop, then they can nominate any other name.

I do not object to NOTA on any primary ballot (write-ins, after all,
are not always by states counted) , but see no sense in it in multiple
round balloting where the uncommitted can nominate nearly anybody.

However, this is not a blocking concern for me. "No Candidate" IS a
blocking concern for me.

Owen R. Broadhurst


On 5/25/05, Owen Broadhurst <owen.broadhurst@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve Kramer wrote:
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> Since my idea to that effect was not well received, here's a simpler one.
>=20
> 1. All Delegates to the convention shall be issued Instructions on Voting=
,
> with an explanation of what "uncommitted", "NOTA", "No Candidate", and
> "abstention" mean in the context of the convention, and what will happen
> if any of these choices gains a majority at any time.
>=20
> 2. The ballot for voting at the convention shall be a single blank space.
> The Delegate will write the name of the candidate they are voting for in
> that space.
>=20
> 3. Reporters for each state shall be issued guidelines on how to interpre=
t
> the various squiggles they may receive.  A vote for any recognizable name
> shall be counted.  A vote for any of the above "non-name" options shall b=
e
> counted.  Endorsements, split votes, blank ballots, and unintelligible
> choices will be counted as abstentions.
>=20
> 4. "Non-name" choices shall be treated as any other choice for the
> purposes of counting, elimination, etc.
>=20
> Can we agree on this?
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> I do not agree.
>=20
> My belief is that "No Candidate" and "NOTA" votes should be counted as
> abstentions; and that no "name" choice should be subject to
> elimination.
>=20
> Owen R. Broadhurst
>