[candidate-development] Fwd: some thoughts on CDLC memo

[Merelice]

Greetings,

To save time at tonight's AdCom meeting, I am forwarding an email
exchange that took place between Grace Ross and Dave England after the
CDLC report was sent to us.

Merelice


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DvEngland at aol.com <DvEngland at aol.com>
Date: Mar 30, 2008 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: [candidate-development] some thoughts on CDLC memo
To: Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com, candidate-development at green-rainbow.org



Hi Grace,

Thank you for your thoughts.  I will try to respond below.

Dave


>...here 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