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

[Merelice]

Regarding math:

Math conclusions are based on math assumptions. So start by checking
the assumptions (for example, is "no preferrence" like another
candidate) before deciding whether the math logic works.

Merelice


On 3/31/08, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com> wrote:
> 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&ncid=aolhom00030000000001)