Thursday, May 11, 2006
Think I may have found it.
The text addresses the way we elect people to national office internally, in other words, the co-chairs and the treasurer and secretary. The national ticket is elected under rules created specifically for that event.
Part of the problem is, at least from my perspective, the procedures are not exactly as I would write them. I imagine most people would prefer things as they want them, instead of as a majority wants them, but here are my points.
In the paragraph entitled "Principle" the authors write
To me this sounds confusing. If my first choice wins, why do I have anything "leftover"? Maybe I'm dumb, but if my candidate wins, isn't that it for that vote? If I can vote at the same time for candidates in more than one race, that is, if five people are running for two seats, if one vote goes for a winner, why is the next person on my list given any boost? I am already represented on the committee, no? Why should any portion of that vote be floating around for me to use again?
The next problem, and it's a doozy to me, is that the opportunity to vote for "No other candidate" did not remain in the offing. It was removed from the proposal before being put up for a vote. I am not clear, but I get the impression that this precludes a write-in campaign for a contested seat. This seems undemocratic to me. This, and the following, are from the paragraph entitled "Ballot Specifications and Directions to Voters"
The next problem is that the proposal provides for the Steering Committee members election by secret ballot. In my opinion, this alone justifies voting against the proposal. I do not want the delegates to the National Convention to be allowed to vote as they wish in secret. I know from personal past experience that the delegates to national conventions are often those party members who can self-finance the trip. There is no way this vote should be held in secret. Voting, and vote counting, must be open, above board, and in public. To do otherwise can only lead to suspicion and mistrust.
In the section entitled "Tabulation of votes" the authors write :
To me this sounds like micro-management run amok. With what, seven co-chairs and other SC members, it's not impossible to imagine a day when most every state will have at least one person running for a national seat. What then? Why so restrictive? We're not a powerful organization. Why make ourselves muscle-bound when we clearly are not?
The section entitled "Rules Regarding Transfer of Votes" seems directed at answering my question of why any of my vote for a winning candidate should be passed along to another candidate. To me, part of the point is to assure that smaller, but consistently supported voices still have access to national leadership. If a successful vote is given extra weight by counting towards someone else, how can that be anything but adding weight to an already successful voter?
Somehow, all this should be easier.
Ah..OK. Write-ins will count, but the person will have to have a rank applied to them for the vote to count. Still though, "No one else" is not a choice, but the choice is effectively there, because a voter can simply choose not to cast all possible votes. If seventeen people are running for three seats, it may be reasonable for a voter to quit ranking candidates after ten or fifteen, no?
Holy crap, I can;t keep reading this thing. When it gets this complicated and dense I tend to wonder what is being hidden in the undergrowth. If you want to wade through the whole;e thing, it's right here
Please write your state representative on the National Committee and ask him or her to vote against Proposal 220. To get your representatives email address, you will have to contact your state party. I have looked at gp.org but have not spotted a list of National Committee email addresses. If anyone knows where to get such a list, please let me know.
Part of the problem is, at least from my perspective, the procedures are not exactly as I would write them. I imagine most people would prefer things as they want them, instead of as a majority wants them, but here are my points.
In the paragraph entitled "Principle" the authors write
Thus, if a voter's first choice among the candidates receives more than enough votes to win, the surplus proportion of that vote will be transferred to that voter's second or succeeding (next-highest ranking) choice. Alternatively, if a voter's first choice candidate is eliminated, that vote instead will be cast for the voter's second or succeeding (next highest ranking) choice
To me this sounds confusing. If my first choice wins, why do I have anything "leftover"? Maybe I'm dumb, but if my candidate wins, isn't that it for that vote? If I can vote at the same time for candidates in more than one race, that is, if five people are running for two seats, if one vote goes for a winner, why is the next person on my list given any boost? I am already represented on the committee, no? Why should any portion of that vote be floating around for me to use again?
The next problem, and it's a doozy to me, is that the opportunity to vote for "No other candidate" did not remain in the offing. It was removed from the proposal before being put up for a vote. I am not clear, but I get the impression that this precludes a write-in campaign for a contested seat. This seems undemocratic to me. This, and the following, are from the paragraph entitled "Ballot Specifications and Directions to Voters"
The next problem is that the proposal provides for the Steering Committee members election by secret ballot. In my opinion, this alone justifies voting against the proposal. I do not want the delegates to the National Convention to be allowed to vote as they wish in secret. I know from personal past experience that the delegates to national conventions are often those party members who can self-finance the trip. There is no way this vote should be held in secret. Voting, and vote counting, must be open, above board, and in public. To do otherwise can only lead to suspicion and mistrust.
In the section entitled "Tabulation of votes" the authors write :
"The Committee conducting an election shall name an Election Tabulation Committee of two or more Committee members, who are not standing for election, nor represent a state represented by a candidate who is standing for election.
To me this sounds like micro-management run amok. With what, seven co-chairs and other SC members, it's not impossible to imagine a day when most every state will have at least one person running for a national seat. What then? Why so restrictive? We're not a powerful organization. Why make ourselves muscle-bound when we clearly are not?
The section entitled "Rules Regarding Transfer of Votes" seems directed at answering my question of why any of my vote for a winning candidate should be passed along to another candidate. To me, part of the point is to assure that smaller, but consistently supported voices still have access to national leadership. If a successful vote is given extra weight by counting towards someone else, how can that be anything but adding weight to an already successful voter?
Somehow, all this should be easier.
Ah..OK. Write-ins will count, but the person will have to have a rank applied to them for the vote to count. Still though, "No one else" is not a choice, but the choice is effectively there, because a voter can simply choose not to cast all possible votes. If seventeen people are running for three seats, it may be reasonable for a voter to quit ranking candidates after ten or fifteen, no?
Holy crap, I can;t keep reading this thing. When it gets this complicated and dense I tend to wonder what is being hidden in the undergrowth. If you want to wade through the whole;e thing, it's right here
Please write your state representative on the National Committee and ask him or her to vote against Proposal 220. To get your representatives email address, you will have to contact your state party. I have looked at gp.org but have not spotted a list of National Committee email addresses. If anyone knows where to get such a list, please let me know.
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 10:06 PM 
