Green-Rainbow Party Presidential Nominating Convention Delegate Selection Plan
Approved by the Green-Rainbow Party State Committee, Sept 13, 2003
2004 is a unique year since the election laws allow us to place presidential candidates on the March 2nd, 2004 primary ballot without gathering a single nomination signature. All the party will need to do is have the co-chairs provide a list of candidates for the primary to the Secretary of the Commonwealth by January 2nd, 2004, and notify said candidates that the party has placed them on the ballot.
The presidential primary ballot includes a “No Preference” (i.e. uncommitted to any particular candidate) choice and allows voters to write-in individuals not on the ballot.
State law does define a minimum set of rules for the selection of delegates to the presidential nomination convention. These include that:
· The distribution of delegates under any such system shall reflect the preference expressed by the voters on the presidential preference portion of the ballot at the presidential primary;
· There must be at least one delegate and one alternate delegate from each congressional district;
· There can be at large delegates and alternate delegates;
·
The
State Committee must provide a set of rules and procedures for delegate
selection to the Secretary of the Commonwealth by October 1st, 2003;
·
The
State Committee must notify the Secretary of the Commonwealth of the number of
delegates and alternate delegates we will send to the national nominating
convention on or before the first Tuesday in January (i.e. January 6th, 2004).
The Green Party of the United States (GPotUS) Accreditations Committee rules for the 2004 national convention will determine how many delegates we will have.
The apportionment of delegates will be decided by the results of the March 2nd, 2004 presidential primary. Delegates will be apportioned proportional to their vote. No minimum thresholds will be set.
The Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), GPotUS Accreditations Committee rules for the 2004 national convention and our own rules will determine the method of selection of our delegates.
Decision: Use a
Full/Proportional Representation system for the allocation of delegates that
also ensures that we have one delegate and alternate delegate for each
congressional district.
Rationale: Using Full/Proportional Representation for allocating delegates ensures that each candidate or the No Preference option receives a number of delegates that is proportional to the votes it receives in the Presidential Primary on March 2nd, 2004. The system we selected has been used by a number of nations for the election of their parliaments.
Decision: We will set
concrete diversity goals and work to meet them.
Rationale: We are a party that encourages diversity and the delegates we send to the national nominating convention must reflect that.
Decision: The
Administrative Committee must notify candidates of the number of delegates and
alternate delegates to which they are entitled and our diversity and gender
goals. Candidates must send us a
prioritized of delegates in alternating female-male order, to ensure gender
diversity, delegate and alternate delegates for any congressional districts
they won, and the contact information of all members listed. The Administrative Committee will notify any
members so selected, and such members must confirm their acceptance.
Rationale: This method decentralizes the delegate selection process and attempts to achieve our gender and diversity goals.
Decision: All delegates
must be members of the party at the time of exiting the presidential primary
and, if pledged to a candidate, are pledged to vote as that candidate decides
until the candidate decides otherwise.
Rationale: Delegates must have a commitment to the party and must vote to support those candidates to whom they have committed themselves.
Decision: The State
Committee, or its designee, will go through the lists candidates send and
allocate members from those lists to the positions available to the candidate.
Candidates that provide an incomplete list will not lose their delegates. However, the State Committee will have the
responsibility of selecting them.
Rationale: We decentralize the process of selecting delegates while encouraging gender balance and diversity.
Decision: The party will
notify all party members in writing prior to the Presidential Primary that they
can be uncommitted delegates. Members
have until April 6th to indicate their interest. The State Committee must select and notify
members selected by April 20th.
Members must confirm their acceptance by April 30th. State Committee will select delegates with
our normal decision process.
Rationale: All members
have the right to be delegates, and the selection by the State Committee is the
fastest way of carrying out this process by the May 10th deadline
for sending our delegation list to the national party.
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1
2 Summary of Decisions............................................................................................................... 2
3 Table of Contents...................................................................................................................... 3
4 What is here.............................................................................................................................. 4
5 Requirements............................................................................................................................ 4
6 Method of Selecting the Number of
Delegates for each Option................................................... 8
7 Ensuring the Diversity of our
Delegates..................................................................................... 13
8 Method of Selecting Delegates for a
Candidate........................................................................ 13
9 Method for Selecting Uncommitted
Delegates.......................................................................... 16
10 Method of Replacing Delegate
Vacancies............................................................................ 17
11 Notifying the National Green Party
of the Delegates Selected............................................... 17
12 Amendments....................................................................................................................... 18
13 Corrections......................................................................................................................... 18
14 Key Dates for Delegate and
Alternate Delegate Selection..................................................... 19
This document outlines:
· The legal and party requirements for delegate and alternate delegate selection;
· The method of selecting the number of delegates and alternate delegates each choice on the presidential primary ballot will receive;
· The method of selecting delegates and alternate delegates for a candidate;
· The method of selecting uncommitted delegates and alternate delegates;
· The method of filling delegate vacancies;
· The key dates for delegate and alternate delegate selection.
Decision: Use a Full/Proportional Representation system for the allocation of delegates that also ensures that we have one delegate and alternate delegate for each congressional district.
Rationale: Using Full/Proportional Representation for allocating delegates ensures that each candidate or the No Preference option receives a number of delegates that is proportional to the votes it receives in the Presidential Primary on March 2nd, 2004. The system we selected has been used by a number of nations for the election of their parliaments.
The Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) give the State Committee great flexibility in defining the rules for delegate selection to the 2004 Presidential Nominating Convention. The most relevant information is contained in Chapter 53, Section 70 of the MGL. Please see http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/gl-53-toc.htm for further information.
The key part is Section 70B (http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/53-70B.htm). It states that the State Committee must provide a set of rules for delegate selection to the Secretary of the Commonwealth by October 1st, 2003. Also it specifies that:
· The number of district delegates and alternate district delegates, not less than two from each congressional district, shall be fixed by the State Committee;
· The number of delegates and alternate delegates at large shall be fixed by the State Committee;
· The State Committee shall notify the Secretary of the Commonwealth of the number of delegates and alternate delegates on or before the first Tuesday in January of the presidential election year. This date is January 6th, 2004.
Once the presidential primary election has occurred, the Secretary of the Commonwealth will notify the state party of the total number of votes cast, as well as the number of votes the “No Preference” option and each candidate on the primary ballot received. This information will be provided for the entire commonwealth and for each congressional district.
The Accreditations Committee (AC) of the Green Party of the United States (GPotUS) has written draft rules for the 2004 presidential nominating convention. It states (Section V. A.) that our delegates should be apportioned by the rules of the state party. It recommends that we use proportional representation to select our delegates (Section V. D.) and that we send a delegation that reflects the diversity of our state (Section V. A.).
The draft national rules do state that we must submit an application for the credentialing of our delegation to the AC by 10 May 2004. This application must be sent by mail and email. This application must include the following items or statements:
· It shall bear the witness of the officers of the state party that delegates named in the application were duly elected as delegates to the Convention as provided for in the rules of the state party;
· It states that the state party is a member of the Green Party of the United States;
· It states that it is the policy of the state party that neither its Presidential Nominating Convention delegates nor its Presidential electors will work in active opposition to the Presidential Slate nominated by the Green Party Presidential Nominating Convention;
· It includes a certified copy of the minutes of the state convention or other body of the state party authorized to elect the delegation, which minutes document the delegate election;
· It includes copies of all portions of state election law which are relevant to the selection of delegates to a national convention, whether by primary, caucus, or petitions for national candidates;
· It identifies by name, date of birth, residential address, phone and fax numbers, email address and the party by which they are registered to vote (where possible) each delegate and alternate delegate elected by the party;
· It states that for any delegate who may be credentialed on the basis of their party’s electoral success, attaches documentation of the election results and the endorsement or nomination of the Green candidate who’s showing in the polls is the basis of the delegate’s eligibility for credentials;
· And it describes for each congressional district in the state, the nature and time frame of any Green activity in the district.
However, it has defined a procedure for determining the number of delegates each state party may send. As of this point, the AC is proposing that for 2004 State Party Delegate totals be comprised of the following:
· Electoral Votes for State;
· Number of elected Greens in the state who won their elections with over 500 votes. The cutoff for races to count for the 2004 convention is 31 Dec 2003;
· An electoral strength adjustment that is the “Highest Statewide Vote Total” multiplied by the Statewide Percentage of the vote, divided by 100,000. The default total for this will be the 2000 Presidential race. The AC will use a state’s better statewide results in another race *if* it is notified before 31 Dec 2003, and the Green candidate in question had both Democrat and Republican opponents;
· Number of seats on the GPotUS Coordinating Committee.
Based on the information we currently have, the "ballpark figure" for the number of delegates from Massachusetts is 33.
Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the Green-Rainbow Party by-laws define the decision-making process of the party. Unfortunately, the nature of the presidential primary does not allow us to seek consensus. Additionally, the voting system the Commonwealth uses does not provide us with the aggregate ranked preferences of the voters in our primary, and as such we cannot use Single Transferable Vote - Proportional Representation as specified in our by-laws.
As a result, we will need to use a method of allocating delegates among competing candidates that is true to the 10 Key Values of the party, but does not fulfill the letter of our by-laws. Thankfully, section 3.4 of the Green-Rainbow Party platform states:
“The Green Party calls upon Massachusetts to lead the U.S. in replacing the undemocratic winner-take-all system with a proportional representation system. Specifically, we call for: …
Mixed Member Proportional Representation in a Unicameral State Legislature: Voters will vote once (by preferential ballot) for their district State Legislative Representative and then again for the party of their choice. Half the seats will be elected from single-member districts and half from the party vote. Seats are awarded in proportion to the party vote, with district seats elected counting toward the party's total. This mixed member proportional system combines the advantages of proportional representation -- a fair share of representation to all groups -- with the advantages of single-member district representatives -- representation of and service to the districts' constituents.”
Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP or MMPR) was first introduced in West Germany and has since spread throughout the world. New Zealand adopted it in the 1990s and has used it successfully. It combines elections for individual member districts with a party based proportional/full representation system. This allows minority opinions to be voiced in a legislative body while also maintaining the constituency services of single member districts.
The Elections New Zealand web site (http://www.elections.govt.nz/elections/esyst/govt_elect.html) summarizes it as such:
“Under MMP each person who is enrolled as an elector for a General electorate or a Maori electorate has two votes:
· The Party Vote is for the political party the elector most wants to be represented in Parliament. The Party Vote portion of the single-page ballot paper shows all the registered political parties that have nominated a party list for the general election. Every voter chooses among the same parties on the Party Vote regardless of whether he or she is enrolled for a General electorate or for as Maori electorate.
· The Electorate Vote is for the candidate the elector wants to represent him or her as the electorate MP. [Note: MP means Member of Parliament and there are currently 69 electorate MPs and 51 list MPs.]
In general, each registered party's total number of Party Votes decides its share of all 120 seats in Parliament. However, before it is entitled to a share of all the seats, a party must first qualify by "crossing the threshold": either it must win at least five percent of all the Party Votes cast at the election, or it must win at least one General or Maori electorate seat. Party Votes cast for parties that do not cross the threshold are disregarded.
The Sainte-Laguë mathematical formula is used to allocate seats to parties that cross the threshold. If an electorate seat is won by an Independent candidate or by a party that did not appear on the Party Vote the Chief Electoral Officer subtracts that number of seats from 120 and uses the lower number to work out allocations of seats between parties that cross the threshold.
Each party that qualifies will be allocated enough list seats to add to any electorate seats it has won so that its share of the total 120 seats is close to its share of all the Party Votes cast for parties that cross the threshold.
If a party that appears on the Party Vote wins more electorate seats than it is entitled to based on its share of all the Party Votes then it does not receive any list seats. It keeps the extra seats (known as "overhang" seats) and the size of Parliament increases by that number of seats until the next general election.
Parties which get list seats fill those seats from the list of candidates they nominated before the general election. List candidates become list MPs in the order they are shown on their party's list, and voters cannot change that order. A person can be a "dual candidate" by standing for an electorate seat as well as being on the party list. A dual candidate who wins an electorate seat has his or her name deleted from the party list.”
Mixed Member Proportional Representation provides the correct mechanism for allocating our Presidential Nominating Convention delegates among the various options on the ballot. The system we will use will be outlined below.
Based on the final numbers we receive from the GPotUS, the co-chairs will notify the Secretary of the Commonwealth of the number of delegates and alternate delegates we plan to send to the 2004 Presidential Nominating Convention on or before the first Tuesday in January (i.e. January 6th, 2004).
Where this number is needed in any formulae, N shall be substituted for this value in such formulae.
Option on the ballot shall mean a designated candidate on the ballot, a write-in candidate on the ballot or “No Preference”.
Prior to the Presidential Primary, the co-chairs of the Green-Rainbow Party will request, in writing, that the Secretary of the Commonwealth send us the primary’s results for each congressional district as well as statewide.
The Candidate Development and Legal Committee (CDLC) will do the required calculations as specified in this plan.
The CDLC will present the actual calculations and results to the Administrative Committee for review and approval one (1) week after the co-chairs of the CDLC are provided with the election results. This information will also be posted on the state party web site for membership review after they are provided to the Administrative Committee.
The Administrative Committee must review and approve or reject the results within one (1) week of receiving them. Failure to approve or reject the results will automatically approve them. If they reject the results, the CDLC co-chairs, in consultation with other CDLC members, will review the results, make any changes and submit the revised results within one (1) week of the rejection. If the Administrative Committee still does not agree with the calculations that determine the results, then they have one (1) week to revise them or they are accepted.
There shall be one delegate and one alternate delegate for each congressional district.
The option that receives the highest number of votes in a congressional district shall win the delegate and alternate delegate from that district.
A procedure, known as the Sainte-Laguë formula (after its founder) is used to decide the number of delegates each option is awarded.
The following steps define the process for determining the number of delegates each option is awarded.
Step 1
The CDLC will draw up a table showing the name of each option, the number of votes it won statewide, the percentage of all votes it won statewide and the number of congressional districts it won. The CDLC will sort the options in descending order by the number of votes each option received.
Step 2
The CDLC then takes the total votes for each eligible option and divides the figures by a sequence of odd numbers starting with 1 (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 etc) and going to 2 * N. The resulting numbers are called quotients.
Step 3
These quotients are placed into a two-column table with the first column being the value of the quotient and the second column being the option to which this quotient is assigned.
The resulting list is sorted by quotient in descending order. The top N rows of the table are selected, and the number of each option is counted to determine the total number of delegates for each option.
Step 4
The CDLC then determines how many congressional district delegates each option won, and allocates enough at large delegates to each option to bring its total number of delegates up to the number to which it is entitled.
In the unlikely event that one or more options wins more congressional districts delegates than its total number of delegates, the total number of delegates for such an option will be set to the number of congressional district delegates it won. The difference between the number of at large delegates such an option should have received and the number of district delegates it did receive shall be called the overhang value, such that:
OVERHANG = #DISTRICT - #ATLARGE
Next, sum of overhand values to get the total overhang value as such:
TOTAL_OVERHANG = Sum (OVERHANG)
Next, remove the last delegate apportioned via Step 3 and also reduce the total overhang value by one. Repeat this process until the total overhang value is zero (0).
No option that received at least one delegate can be reduced to less than one (1) delegate. If the overhang value process should result in the elimination of an option’s last remaining delegate, then skip over that entry and choose the next higher one to eliminate.
However, due to the fact that the number of at large delegates is more than twice the number of congressional district delegates, we do not anticipate that this rule will be used.
The following examples are provided to demonstrate the above process.
In both of the examples below, the total number of delegates (N) is 33.
Example 1
Step 1 presents the election results in a table as such:
|
Option |
Votes |
% of Vote Received |
# of District
Delegate |
|
A |
2000 |
40% |
8 |
|
No Preference |
1150 |
23% |
1 |
|
B |
1000 |
20% |
1 |
|
C |
750 |
15% |
0 |
|
D |
100 |
2% |
0 |
|
Totals |
5000 |
100% |
10 |
By Step 2, we get the following quotients:
|
|
Options |
||||
|
Divisor |
A |
No Preference |
B |
C |
D |
|
1 |
2000 |
1150 |
1000 |
750 |
100 |
|
3 |
666.67 |
383.33 |
333.33 |
250 |
33.33 |
|
5 |
400 |
230 |
200 |
150 |
20 |
|
7 |
285.71 |
164.29 |
142.86 |
107.14 |
14.29 |
|
9 |
222.22 |
127.78 |
111.11 |
83.33 |
11.11 |
|
11 |
181.82 |
104.55 |
90.91 |
68.18 |
9.09 |
|
13 |
153.85 |
88.46 |
76.92 |
57.69 |
7.69 |
|
15 |
|||||