Susan King <funking@greens.org> wrote: All, here is a revised, simplified version of the proposals that we will be discussing on Saturday at the SF Plenary. Personally, I favor having more individual delegate choice rather than having the GPCA direct our votes beyond the first round. Here's the intro and proposals, please review: To All Involved: Below is draft text for revised proposals to present to the General Assembly on the subject of GPUS delegates eligibility and voting. These were developed from the teleconference and additional material I received by email from Jim Stauffer. Jim's content did not include an express proposal, so I wrote the # 3. that follows. Jim wrote the introduction and comments after # 3., but I have edited his text for what I believe is ,clarity without damage to the message. (Jim may disagree.) Jim's initial text referred to # 2. and # 3. as general concepts. I disagree with this perspective. My view is that we would be proposing binding decisions for the General Assembly to make at the March 27-28th plenary and that any changes would require further GA decision. I agree with Jim's comments that # 3. contemplates the possibility of NOTA or NOC votes at the Milwaukee convention, and I agree that, given the lateness of GPUS rules for the convention and the very real controversies about NOTA, Nader, etc., flexibility for multiple ballot or ranked voting scenarios is the only way we can hope to reach consensus among the GPCA delegates. If we have consensus about this draft for revised proposals, the next step would be to promptly communicate this text via a County Contacts email and to make sure paper copies are available at the registration table in San Francisco. Who does these? Warner (3/18/04) ======================================== To the GPCA General Assembly March 27-28, 2004
From the Ad-Hoc Committee on GPUS Convention Delegates
INTRODUCTION The proposal in the agenda packet for instructions to GPCA delegates to the Milwaukee 2004 GPUS Presidential Nominating Convention contains two different detailed procedures. To those of us working on this issue, it has become apparent that details about the convention presidential nomination voting process are uncertain and likely will remain unresolved during the March General Assembly. However, there are basic concepts and principles we can adopt at this time to get us moving in the right direction. If we can agree upon these, filling in any missing details will be much easier at the June General Assembly. We are modifying the proposal by asking you to make three decisions at this time. These are based on the proposals which were contained in the agenda packet -- so, we're not presenting radically different information from what you have already reviewed. Additionally, the earlier proposals did not address the issue of having NOTA (none of the above) and/or NOC (no other choice) on the convention ballot. These options did not appear on the state's primary election ballot so we do not know what the voters would have chosen if they had been provided these options. REVISED PROPOSALS FOR ADOPTION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1. GPCA delegates to the GPUS nominating convention must be registered in the Green Party and have been eligible to vote in the March 2nd GPCA Primary Election. (Presenter: Susan King) 2. The GPCA delegates to the GPUS presidential nominating convention shall vote as a delegation in accordance with the March 2nd Primary Election results on the first ballot or first choice of ranking (i.e. proportionally with the voting results). (Presenter: Warner Bloomberg) 3. If the convention uses multi-round voting or ranked-ballot voting, the delegates shall caucus to discuss how GPCA votes additionally should be ranked or distributed and each delegate shall have individual authority to mark any paper ballot assigned to that individual delegate. (Presenter: Jim Stauffer) Jim Stauffer's additional comments -- There are two basic options: let the delegates decide at the convention, or let the GPCA decide and direct the delegates' votes before the convention. Delegates decide - Delegates should be representatives of the voters and use their judgment to estimate who the constituents of any given candidate would select as their subsequent choices. This also gives the delegates flexibility to deal with unforeseen issues that may come up at the convention. And it allows them to cast votes for NOTA or NOC. GPCA decides - Delegates may be subjected to influence and coercion to change their votes at the convention. Individual delegates may have personal agendas and decide not to follow the process agreed upon by the GPCA. These problems are minimized by directing the delegates' subsequent choices. _______________________________________________ Delegates mailing list Delegates@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/delegates Read the latest issue of Frontlines at http://www.sf-frontlines.com Local, National and International political news and commentaries.