Green Party of the United States
Home Vote Results History Contacts Admin
 National Committee Voting

Login

Proposal Details

Proposal ID1166
ProposalFloor Manager Settings for Ranked Choice Votes
PresenterGreen Party of Washington
Floor ManagerHolly Hart
PhaseClosed - Failed: Quorum Not Met
Discussion11-19-2023 - 11-20-2023
Voting11-21-2023 - 11-26-2023
Presens QuorumTwo Thirds of Active Accredited States/Caucuses
Consens QuorumA Majority of Yes and No Votes

Background

his proposal asks the National Committee to give direction to Floor Managers as they create ranked choice votes for Steering Committee elections. It corrects inconsistencies in settings that are under the control of Floor Managers, that have been observed since the current voting system was adopted in 2006.

The proposal changes no bylaws or rules.

Article V of GPUS Bylaws calls for a NOTA ballot choice for all proposals that provide voting options other than YES and NO. In ranked choice votes, the concept of "NOTA" manifests itself as NOC (No Other Candidate). Having such an explicit NOTA choice assures that candidates seeking a position will always be in a contested race with some ballot competition - even on ranked choice ballots when the number of ballot-qualified candidates would otherwise be less than or equal to the number of seats being filled.

Article VI Section 2.4 of GPUS Bylaws call for votes for Co-chair, Secretary and Treasurer to be made public upon the conclusion of the voting period. This is interpreted as a roll call of how each delegate voted. Delegates are representatives of their state parties and it is emphatically asserted that delegates' votes are not private.

The Elections Tabulation Committee (ETC) in its review of the 2010 SC election discovered a problem with the voting software that prevents full compliance with Article VI Section 2.4. While the vote tabulation and results themselves have been consistently correct, roll-call reports have been incomplete when the ranked choice votes were not open. Fixes attempted to this known problem have not yet worked.

The Floor Manager settings that this proposal establishes is for Floor Managers to keep the ranked choice ballots "open" until such time that the voting software is fixed to correct this problem. The final record of a vote must show the roll call of how individual delegates have voted. The proposal further suggests that Floor Managers issue an advisory that delegates cast their final votes as late in the voting period as possible if they are concerned about gaming.

Floor Managers have been inconsistent in how they set up ranked choice votes:
Sometimes Floor Managers provide a NOTA ballot choice, and sometimes they do not, and delegates who wish to cast a NOTA vote must write that choice in. Floor Managers have sometimes not revealed a roll call of how delegates voted in elections, effectively resulting in secret ballots.

Some Floor Managers have cited Article VII of National Committee rules as a basis for not including an “NOTA” ballot choice on ranked choice ballots. While Article VII of the rules does affirm the right of a delegate to cast an implicit NOTA vote by leaving candidates unranked, said article does not remove the right of a delegate to cast an explicit NOTA vote..

A link to the audit of ranked choice votes since the passage of rules Article VII is in the References section of this proposal. The audit shows when Floor Managers offer voters a NOTA ballot choice (19 times), when Floor Managers reveal the roll call of votes (29 times), when voters choose to write in a NOTA choice when such a choice is not on the ballot (34 times), and when the Elections Tabulation Committee submits a report certifying that the voting system is counting votes consistent with Article VII of the rules (7 times).On only two occasions has the Floor Manager both 1) included an "electable" NOTA/NOC option and 2) have revealed the final roll call of votes. They are:

  Holly Hart, SC Vote 235

  Tamar Yager, Secretary Vote 1132

This proposal does not change the voting system that is spelled out in Article VII of National Committee rules. The Elections Tabulations Committee over the years has consistently reported that the voting software counts the votes and ranks the candidates properly in those Steering Committee elections where a "NOTA" choice is on the ballot: votes 235, 790, 810, 846, 894, 1021, 1059, and 1083. The Elections Tabulations Committee has also consistently reported that the voting software counts the votes properly when "NOTA" is written in by some delegates (when the Floor Manager did not give voters a NOTA ballot choice): Votes 326, 446, 458, 588, 589, 633, 648, 681, 721, 725, 872, 914, 926, 945, 965, and 1144.
Proposal

Proposal

The National Committee resolves that:

1) Floor Managers of all ranked choice votes must include an “electable” NOTA ballot choice, called NOC (No Other Candidate), that can receive rankings (or no rankings), consistent with Article V of the bylaws; if the final vote ranking results in the NOC candidate being successfully “elected” at any rank, it will void the election of any lower-ranked candidate who would otherwise have been elected. Floor managers should advise voters that the more ballot rankings that they make in excess of the number of seats being elected, the greater the potential dilution of their other preferences. Voters, taking account of the agency that is theirs, may choose not to rank some ballot choices, including not ranking the NOTA / NOC choice, for this reason.

2) Article VII of the rules of the National Committee, which was adopted in June 2006, was never meant to deny delegates an explicit NOTA / NOC choice; and,

3) Floor Managers of all ranked choice votes must present a roll call showing how delegates vote, consistent with Article VI Section 2.4 of the bylaws. Floor managers should advise voters that, if the voter is concerned with possible gaming of the ranked choice results, the voter should wait until the end of the voting period. This caution will not be needed when voting software permits the roll call of individual delegate votes to be concealed until the close of voting.

Resources

IMPLEMENTATION/TIMELINE/RESOURCES:
Immediately upon passage of this proposal, future Floor Managers will comply with this resolution for future ranked choice votes.

References

References

CONTACT: Scott Laugenour
+1 413 241 7327
scottlaugenour@gmail.com

Margaret Elisabeth
MargaretElisabeth@outlook.com

Bylaws Article V = https://gpus.org/bylaws/#05

Bylaws Article VI Section 2.4 - https://gpus.org/bylaws/#06-02

Rules Article VII Section F -nhttps://gpus.org/rules-procedures/#07

AUDIT OF RANKED CHOICE VOTES - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U2p1DYQBdFnGcDWYCZaVB_y47jPZ6ue-nZe1cDwNcfw/edit#gid=0

Mock Vote = https://docs.google.com/document/d/11uRziQB4LqTtxIgHmW5CSl_tMnG6HC_LdnrrjCgTmRw/edit
Results of MOCK vote that takes place during the discussion period, as detailed here: Mock Election of Green Party Soup Ingredients

Mock Election Background:

This is a mock ranked choice vote election to support the discussion of proposal ###.

Mock Election Proposal:
A rank choice vote whereby the National Committee is electing up to ten ingredients to cook in a pot of water to make soup. The ingredient candidates are presented on the ballot.

The ballot will be open. Votes can be changed until the vote closes.

There are 24 eligible ingredients plus an electable “NOTA,” which in this ranked choice vote is called NO OTHER INGREDIENT.
Write-ins are allowed. During the voting period delegates can see which ingredients other delegates are writing in and can decide to include those same write-ins on their ballot. If a write-in ingredient is elected, and is eligible for the soup according to the kitchen bylaws, that ingredient will be added to the soup.

All ingredients may be either ranked or left blank according to the rules of ranked choice voting.

The Floor Manager issues the following guidance to delegates:
A delegate should ABSTAIN from the vote if they don’t care what ingredients are put in the soup; this means that they will allow other delegates’ selections to decide the result. If enough other delegates also abstain and prevent any ingredient from reaching a minimum threshold for election, then instead of soup there will be a pot of hot water.

A delegate should rank NO OTHER INGREDIENT as #1 if they wish for a pot of hot water with no ingredients. If, after the vote closes, NO OTHER INGREDIENT achieves #1 final ranking, then instead of soup there will be a pot of hot water. Any election of a #2, #3 etc. ingredient is void. Delegates can still rank other ingredients #2, #3, #4, etc. if they have ingredient preferences that they wish to be ranked in the event that NO OTHER INGREDIENT does not achieve a #1 final ranking.

A delegate’s vote can reflect a desire to elect fewer than 10 ingredients. If, for example, a delegate believes that only 5 ingredients, not ten, should be added to the soup, then they should rank NO OTHER INGREDIENT as #6. If after the vote closes NO OTHER INGREDIENT achieves a #6 final ranking, the election of other ingredients is void, and only 5 ingredients will be added to the soup. The delegate in this example can still choose to rank other ingredients at #7, #8, #9, #10, etc. if they wish for these preferences to be considered in the event that NO OTHER INGREDIENT does not achieve the final ranking hoped for.

A delegate has the right to an “implicit NOTA” choice by not ranking any ingredient. If enough other delegates also leave a given ingredient unranked it will prevent that ingredient from reaching the minimum threshold for election, in which case that ingredient will not be elected.

In ranked choice votes that are public there is a chance that some delegations will attempt to game the results. In this mock election we ask those delegations who attempt to game the results to use the rest of the discussion period for proposal ### to reveal what they did to game the system and report back on how effective it was.

Because public ranked choice votes can be “gamed” some delegates may wish to wait until the last possible moment to cast their vote. The later it is that votes are cast the less effective any attempts at gaming the vote will be. Proposal ### asks future Floor Managers to issue such advice until such time that a fix to the programming can be made to further reduce the risk of gaming.

Proposal ### posits that when reconciling the two values expressed in Article VI Section 2.4 of GPUS Bylaws, the value of open ballots is primary and the value of totally blocking attempts at gaming is secondary.

Delegates are advised that the more ballot rankings they make in excess of the number of ingredients being elected, the greater the potential is for dilution of their other preferences. Voters, taking account of the agency that is theirs, may choose not to rank some ballot choices, including not ranking the NOTA / NOC choice for this reason. Proposal ### asks future Floor Managers to issue such a caution to delegates when ranked choice votes are announced.

INGREDIENT "CANDIDATES"
Yellow onion
Shallots
Carrots
Celery
Turnip
Kale
White beans
Navy beans
Barley
Garlic
MSG
Salt
Pepper
Potatoes
Parsley
Chicken bones
Lentils
Pork sausage
Tempeh
Tomatoes
Bok Choy
Spinach
Chicken breast meat White wine
NOC (no other ingredients)


The voting software used by the Green Party of the United States is free software, licensed under the General Public License v2 (GPL).