[candidate-development] some thoughts on CDLC memo

[DvEngland at aol.com]

Hi Grace,
 
Thank you for your thoughts.  I will try to respond below.
 
Dave
 
 
are some thoughts on the proposal to apportion votes whose preference is  not 
now a candidate:

I still need to do more research but here is the  problem with this proposal
> from the position of a party that has put IRV  front and center...
>
>  Say we have six options - if we do  this as a blind formula.
>
>  People go  vote
>
>  Option 1 gets X votes
>  Option 2 gets Y  votes
>  Option 3 gets Z votes
>  Option 4 gets A  votes
>  Option 5 gets B votes
>  Option 6 gets C  votes
>
>  In our Massachusetts voting system, we don't rank so  if Option 5 gets
> removed, which other option gets their votes?  We  don't know who the folks
> who voted for Option 5 would have voted  for.  Given that we don't know, we
> can still assume that it is  unlikely that everyone who voted for Option 5
> would have all voted for,  say, Option 4 or any other option - right?  In
> fact if we know  nothing at all (and we don't re-ballot) then don't we have
> to assume  that our pool of all voters are more like each other than
> different  politically?  Don't we have to distribute the votes that went to
>  Option 5 along the same distribution as all the other votes  cast?
>
>  In reality, there may in fact be information in the  "blank" ballots, since
> most "blank" ballots are simply not counted  because the machine could not
> count them (these are not being counted at  all).  second, there is some
> information in the "write-ins" which I  suspect the Secretary of the
> Commonwealth has to give us since it is in  our delegate selection
> plan which htey accepted- but they did  not.
>
>  However, we don't have that  information.


There may be information on the blank votes, but it is  likely most of them 
are truly blank.  The only other possibility is that a  few voters marked more 
than one candidate and then got out the door before  anyone realized their 
ballot kicked back.  (If it was caught soon enough,  and the voter was still 
standing there, they would have been given a fresh  ballot to use.)  If the voter 
can't be found -- we had to do this once in  the precinct I ran -- we override 
the system and make the ballot go through the  machine.  It is then recorded 
-- as a blank.
 
 
The only way to examine the  blanks is to go to every city or town that cast 
blank ballots and ask them to  open the lock boxes and let us sort through 
them, which we could not do  unsupervised even if they would allow it, and they 
don't have to without a solid  indication that an election is in the balance.  
Would probably need a court  order as well.
 
The only logical assumption we can make is: (1) the  voter not only didn't 
want to vote for any of the six candidates, (2) they  didn't want to write-in 
someone else, and (3) they didn't want to vote  no-preference and send an 
uncommitted delegate to the convention.  The only  way to reflect this sentiment is 
to remove those blank ballots from the  calculation.
 
>
>  What we do know is that everyone who voted for Brown,  Ball & Nader had the
> options equally to choose: Swift, Mesplay,  McKinney, No Preference or to
> write someone in.  All we know is  that they did not choose those options.
> We cannot assume that any one of  those options would have been those 
voters'
> second choice (if we  knew that then we would not believe in nor fight for
>  IRV).
>
>  IF No Preference were not an option on the ballot,  you could argue that
> assigning those who voted for B,B or N to No  Preference was not unfairly
> advantaging or disadvantaging any other  option.  However, on our ballot No
> Preference actually ran as a  candidate against all other candidates (and 
did
> pretty well  actually).  So how can you give No Preference the huge  
advantage
> of getting all votes that went to those who now are not in  the race?

 
No preference isn't a candidate.   It's an option that holds open the choice 
of whom to vote for and allows the NP  delegate to wait until the convention 
and use their judgement in deciding whom  to vote for until then.  I know of 
voters who voted no preference because  they didn't feel they knew any of the 
candidates or their positions well enough  to choose, so they, in effect, said 
Let's wait until later to decide  this.
 
Putting a delegate in the  NP pool doesn't disadvantage the other candidates. 
 In fact, it give them  the opportunity to campaign among the NP delegates to 
get more  delegates.

>
>  And I guess the same argument could apply as to why  write-ins as a group 
don't go
> to No Preference?
 
They did go to  No Preference.  The difference between  blanks and write-in 
ballots is that the NP voters did vote, did  participate.  We just don't know 
what they said. We can't treat their votes  as blanks because they weren't 
blanks, so we put them in the no preference  category, which is the most flexible  
option.
>
> What I think this means is that  assigning the votes that went to those who 
are not now running in
>  any way except proportionally is both questionable math-logic and not
>  legally even-handed.
 
In the memo, the first calculation  follows strictly the plan and state law 
as if all the candidates are still  running.  It then addresses the updated 
circumstances -- lack of  information on write-ins, and withdrawals -- and makes 
the most neutral,  logical, and defensible recommendations to AdCom for the 
orderly treatment of  those affected votes.
>
>  Someone tell me why I am  wrong here?  Love, Grace
PS. one advantage of handling the apportionment  this way is that the 
Secretary of the commonwealth cannot object since it is  how the Mass 
Democrats do:
"If a presidential candidate is no longer a  candidate at the time of 
selection of the at-large
delegates, then those  at-large slots that would have been allocated to the 
candidate will  be
proportionally divided among the remaining preferences entitled to an  
allocation. (Rule
10.C.)"
 
It's clear from this experience that, after the  election, we need to revisit 
the plan and address several weaknesses.  For  now, however, this is the plan 
that's on file with the Secretary's office and  the plan that needs to be 
followed for this cycle.  As for the Dems, they  have their rule and we, in 
effect, have no rule.  This is a weakness that  needs to be addressed before the 
next presidential election, but we can't change  what we have in the middle of 
this race.  That would make us look like  little Hillarys.  She wants to change 
the rules in Michigan and Florida in  the midst of her race knowing that the 
only likely outcome would be to her  benefit.  As a party, we have to operate 
as neutrally as possible, and I  think what's in this memo does that.  
Furthermore, I don't think any of us would take kindly to a  Democratic Secretary of 
Comm enforcing his party's rules on our party.   That's a door we don't want 
to open even a crack.
 
Hope this answers all you questions.
 
Dave



**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL 
Home.      
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)