Council Proposal #014-04

PROPOSAL NUMBER: 014-04

1. Date proposed: 6/18/04
Name of the sponsor: Lanny Kness, GPCO Co-Chair; Charlie Green, GPUS-CC Rep; Bruce Meyer, DGP

2. PROPOSAL SUBJECT:
Procedure for determining the GPCO Presidential slate and Apportioning Delegates

3. FULL PROPOSAL:
This proposal requests the following text be added to the GPCO "Procedures and Guidelines" at the numbering provided. It is suggested the reader first review sections "4. Background" and "5. Justification/Goals" of this proposal to understand the reason for this proposal.

-- Beginning of Proposed Wording --

3.8 Determining the GPCO Presidential slate and Apportioning Delegates - The procedure to select a Presidential slate for the GPUS Nominating Convention will be determined by executing in order the steps contained in this section.

3.8.1.1 At the State Meeting, nominations for Presidential candidates will be taken from the floor. Only delegates selected by their Locals may place a name in nomination. A nomination does not require a second. Choices like "no candidate", "uncommitted", etc. may also be nominated.

3.8.1.2 All nominations will be displayed.

3.8.1.3 When all nominations are in, the first round of voting will occur.

3.8.1.4.1 The facilitator will take a "sense of the convention" (a non-debatable, straw vote) that will determine if speeches will be allowed at this point. If allowed, each nominator will be permitted to speak on behalf of the nomination, and this will be followed by a period of discussion open only to delegates.

3.8.1.4.2 The facilitator will call for the vote. Delegates will publicly declare their choice.

3.8.1.4.3 The results of the ballot will be visibly posted.

3.8.1.4.4 Any candidate or choice getting less than the "threshold percentage" in votes is eliminated. The threshold is given by the formula "threshold percentage" = (1 / number of delegates allocated by the GPUS to the GPCO) * 100.

3.8.1.4.5 If no candidate or choice gets 60% of the votes cast, and two or less votes have been taken, another round of voting is required.

3.8.1.5 If no candidate or choice gets 60% of the votes cast and no candidate or choice is eliminated in the third and latter rounds of voting, the convention must vote (a non-debatable, procedural vote) after each round to have an additional round of voting.

3.8.1.6 Any subsequent rounds of voting will use the steps in 3.8.1.4.

3.8.1.7 When closure of voting occurs, the final vote results will become the GPCO Presidential slate.

3.8.2.1 The final vote results will be converted to percentages of total votes cast and each of the surviving choices and candidates will have the appropriate percentage assigned to them.

ND is the "Number of Delegates assigned to a choice or candidate"

CAP is the "Candidate's assigned percentage", which is derived in 3.8.2.1

DC is the "Number of delegates and proxy votes in attendance at the nominating convention vote"

3.8.2.3 The "ND" will be rounded with any fraction less than .50 reduced to .0, and any fraction equal or greater than .50 increased to 1.0.

3.8.2.4 For all candidates and choices, the number of assigned delegates ("ND") will be totaled.

3.8.2.5 Any unaccounted for delegate will be assigned "uncommitted".

3.8.2.6 If the total number of assigned delegates exceeds the number allocated by the GPUS, each candidates' and choices' "ND" will be truncated with any fraction reduced to .0.

3.8.3.1 When the delegates are chosen, their votes on the floor of the GPUS Nominating Convention will be assigned and bound through the second ballot for the Presidential Candidate of the GPUS with the exception of the uncommitted delegates. Only if a candidate withdraws his or her name from nomination will a delegate be released from binding early.

3.8.3.2 The number of delegates on the floor of the convention should be apportioned per 3.8.2.

3.8.3.3 A delegation coordinator will be chosen by the delegates, and will be responsible for these provisions.

3.8.3.4 On all subsequent ballots after the second, the delegates are released from any binding direction for voting.

3.8.4 The GPCO will support the nominated GPUS Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. These candidates are placed on the General Election ballot by the GPUS.

3.8.5 The GPCO will select at the State Meeting the required number of Presidential electors for the Electoral College.

-- End of Proposed Wording --

4. BACKGROUND:
Council Proposal 003-04 was ratified by Council to cover the choosing of a GPCO Presidential slate and apportioning of delegates for the 2004 GPCO State Nominating Convention. It was required because the GPCO Bylaws and "Procedures and Guidelines" do not provide a process. The process was used successfully at the State Convention. This proposal is a re-statement and extension of Proposal 003-04 for inclusion into the GPCO "Procedures and Guidelines".

5. JUSTIFICATION/GOALS:
Per Section 2.2 of the GPCO "Procedures and Guidelines", the GPCO Council may modify the GPCO "Procedures and Guidelines" at anytime. Therefore, the Council can consider this proposal.

----------

Every 4 years, the GPCO will need to go thru the process of selecting its Presidential slate. Time and energy was spent creating the process in Proposal 003-04, but the GPCO should not re-expend this energy every four years. Also, there are problems in the instructions to the delegates in 003-04. Therefore, the Council should add this proposal to the GPCO's "Procedures and Guidelines".

This proposal is a re-statement of Proposal 003-04 with the following changes:

A) The numbering was updated to match the numbering in the GPCO "Procedures and Guidelines".

B) This proposal organizes the steps into these categories:

3.8.1 Procedure for selecting a Presidential slate
3.8.2 Procedure for apportioning the Presidential slate delegates
3.8.3 Delegation instructions at the GPUS Nominating Convention
3.8.4 GPUS Nominee placement on ballot
3.8.5 Selection of Presidential Electors

C) This proposal tries to replicate the intent of Council Proposal 003-04. It varies from this proposal in the following ways:

C1) The "threshold percentage" in proposal 003-04 was 5%. This proposal changed this to the calculation in 3.8.1.4.4. The logic in doing this is that the "threshold percentage" is equal to 1 GPUS convention delegate vote. So if at the GPCO Convention, a nomination gets enough votes to be represented by a delegate at the GPUS Convention, then that nominee will stay in contention during rounds of voting.

C2) This proposal attempts to layout more clearly how the apportioning of delegates to nominees is done. This is the intent of section 3.8.2. In Proposal 003-04, there was no provision for rounding errors. Using the 2004 GPCO State meeting results as an example, with this proposal, the delegate apportioning would be:

With 22 allocated delegates:

Candidate	Vote	Percentage	"ND"	Allocation
David Cobb	11	64.71	14.24	14
Uncommitted	2	11.76	2.59	3
No Candidate	2	11.76	2.59	3
Peter Camejo	1	5.88	1.29	1
Lorna Salzman	1	5.88	1.29	1
Kent Mesplay	0	0	0	0
Totals		17		22

What would happen if we only had 9 delegates and no proxies:

Candidate	Vote	Percentage	"ND"	Allocation
David Cobb	11	64.71	5.82	6
Uncommitted	2	11.76	1.06	1
No Candidate	2	11.76	1.06	1
Peter Camejo	1	5.88	0.53	1
Lorna Salzman	1	5.88	0.53	1
Kent Mesplay	0	0	0	0
Totals		17		10

Because 10 exceeds the 9 delegates present, 3.8.2.6 comes into effect with the following result:

Candidate	Vote	Percentage	"ND"	Allocation
David Cobb	11	64.71	5.82	5
Uncommitted	2	11.76	1.06	1
No Candidate	2	11.76	1.06	1
Peter Camejo	1	5.88	0.53	0
Lorna Salzman	1	5.88	0.53	0
Kent Mesplay	0	0	0	0
Totals		17		7

With the remaining 2 delegates being assigned "uncommitted" per 3.8.2.5.

D) Content changes in 3.8.1 "How to accept nominations and conduct voting"

D1) In 3.8.1.1, i added "Only delegates selected by their Locals may place a name in nomination. A nomination does not require a second. Choices like "no candidate", "uncommitted", etc. may also be nominated." These lines were added to clarify who was eligible to nominate, to make clear that a "second" is not required, and to make clear that choices other than an actual candidate are allowed. They also reflect the process used at the 2004 GPCO Nominating Convention.

D2) In 3.8.1.2, i removed "along with the choices of "no candidate" and "uncommitted." If these are desired, a delegate can nominate the choice. See 3.8.1.1.

D3) In 3.8.1.4, i combined the steps making up a vote into a specific section for clarity.

D4) In 3.8.1.4.1, i added, "If allowed, each nominator will be permitted to speak on behalf of the nomination, and this will be followed by a period of discussion open only to delegates." This reflects the process used at the 2004 GPCO Nominating Convention.

E) Content changes in 3.8.4 "GPUS Nominee placement on ballot"

The current GPCO bylaws and "Procedures and Guidelines" do not cover whether or not the GPUS Candidate must be on the Colorado General Election ballot. During conversations leading up to the State Convention, it was discovered that as a state party of the GPUS, we are required to support the Presidential Candidate. Failure to do so would revoke the GPCO's accreditation as part of the GPUS. Therefore, to prevent a replay of these discussions, i have included this item in this proposal.

6. PROS AND CONS:
Benefits: Acceptance of this proposal prevents re-hashing discussions every 4 years. This proposal also prevents issues in apportioning delegates to candidates.
Drawbacks: None.

7. Alternatives to the proposal
This proposal could be enacted as a guide to the 2004 GPUS Nominating Convention delegates, and not passed as an amendment to the GPCO "Procedures and Guidelines". This would prevent the possible errors in apportioning delegates.

This proposal did not consider the use of half votes in apportioning delegates, which could be considered.

8. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES:
Council Proposal 003-04: http://www.coloradogreens.org/voting/prop003_04.html