- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Procedures and Guidelines specify the process in section 3.8 (http://www.coloradogreenparty.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/PG-2004.pdf). It is not an elegant process and I feel that it doesn't comply with giving every Green in attendance an equal vote. I think this is the general feeling so we will probably need to create a new process. I looked in the bylaws and they don't designate any power to the Procedures and Guidelines (except when filling vacancies.) I don't even think that the Procedures and Guidelines have a clause for making amendments. Considering all this, I think it is well within the authority of the officers of the GPCO and the Convention Committee to create a new process. The question is, how do we do it? STV won't work because it is designed to seat a individual candidates rather than proportionately assign delegates. I was having trouble finding any information on how to conduct an election with proportional delegate allocation until I looked at Nevada on this chart (http://www.fairvote.org/gop-2012-primary-race-results#.TzgNF5hOE05). I found a description of the method they use at (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/NV-R). It reads, "For those candidates receiving 3.57% or more of the vote: The number of delegates = 28 × (candidate's popular vote) ÷ (total statewide vote). Round to the nearest whole number." What do you all think of this formula? I would like to know what they base their minimum threshold on. Does anyone have any ideas about how to set a threshold? Procedures and Guidelines offer this formula for the threshold "(1 / number of delegates allocated by the GPUS to the GPCO) * 100". What do you think of this? As we mentioned before, I want to use a ranked ballot. The rankings would come into effect if a candidate does not meet the threshold. It could also be used to instruct delegates if a candidate drops out before the National Convention. I guess the added advantage is that it could guide delegates beyond their initial vote at the National Convention. Procedures and Guidelines release delegates from obligation after their initial vote. I would probably agree to keep this, but it would be nice to provide delegates with additional information if they want to fully reflect the will of the Colorado Greens. Because this is a long post, I will summarize:Procedures & Guidelines offer a cumbersome and unfavorable method for selecting delegates. It doesn't comply with the amendment allowing all registered Greens to vote at conventions. Procedures & Guidelines is not a governing document and I don't feel we have to follow it, especially when it conflicts with the Bylaws. I feel we should use a formula to proportionately assign delegates. This election should be conducted on a ranked ballot to prevent wasted votes if a candidate does not meet a given threshold, and to indicate more precisely the will of the voters. Are there any suggestions on what formula to use and how to set a minimum threshold for a candidate to receive delegates?
Gary Swing contacted FairVote for advise. They suggested an Iowa Caucus style vote:
From FairVote: The Democratic Paryt rules for the Iowa caucuses provide one example. You create a treshold [sic] (let's say 10%), and then people go to stand in groups based on their candidtae preferences. If their first choice is below the threshold, they move to their second choice. Hope that helps.
From this, Gary suggested that we use this formula: [Votes Cast/(n+1)]+1 = minimum number of votes required to elect a delegate, where n equals the number of delegates to be elected. I will do my best with this math. Lets say we have 50 attendees voting. The number of votes to receive one delegate is 7.25. Say the votes are Stein 26, Barr 16, Mesplay 8. The delegate count would be Stein 3, Barr 2, Mesplay 1. Stein would get the remaining fraction of the vote and be awarded one more delegate. It was just decided this week that Colorado will be awarded 7 delegates. Gary pointed out that we don't need to establish the arbitrary minimum vote threshold that FairVote suggests. Yes, there will still be a minimum amount of votes a candidate needs to receive in order to get a delegate. That will depend on how many votes are cast. We also need to consider how fractional delegates will be allocated. We could just round to the nearest whole number, or we could use a more complex formula such as the largest remainder method where the top vote getter is awarded the sum of the fractional delegate not to exceed one (if one exists), the second highest vote getter getting the second fractional delegates not to exceed one (if one exists), etc.Now, we can could potentially conduct this vote either by actually grouping up (like FairVote suggests), or by secret ballot. Grouping has the advantage of being simple and interactive. If a candidate does not receive enough votes to get a delegate, that candidates supporters may move to their second choice. Conducting this vote by secret ballot has the advantage of being secret. I would encourage the use of a ranked ballot. If a candidate does not have enough votes to receive a delegate, their vote would be transferred to their second choice candidate. I am up for either method. I would lean toward the Iowa inspired method but I also want to be sensitive to those who have privacy concerns. We could poll council beforehand, or we could prepare to do either method and poll the conference attendees. What are everyone's thoughts?
You're right Jonesy, this is a little confusing. I appreciate that you've taken the time to put it as simply as you have. I feel that it may be easier to round up the fractions, unless we feel this will drastically impact the results of the contest I think we could settle for that. However, if the added complexity of using the largest remainder method provides results that more accurately reflect the will of the voters, than I think we can handle the extra math. 🙂 As for the voting, I kinda like the Iowa caucus idea, since it could lead to some interesting discussions on the back end about what drew each of us to a specific candidate. If handled in a nonviolent and communicative manner, this input could help the candidates' campaigns understand what different members of the Green Party are looking for.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.