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

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Actually, Dave included this suggestion in his memo.   and the exchange was 
posted to the CDLC list.   

I encourage others to check the math logic - I don't think that it is wrong - 
Thanks, Grace
In a message dated 3/31/08 9:05:59 AM, merelice at gmail.com writes:


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> candidate-development mailing list
> candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/candidate-development
> 
> 




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