PROPOSAL NUMBER: 001-05
Preface:
This is a special vote in that our votes will be counted using Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Also the Condorcet method will be used to measure the results for comparison. The IRV results will have preference on this first try.
To cast your votes, you will be given six options–A through F (see below).
Each option gets a rating–1 through 6–with 1 being your favorite choice, and 6 being your least favorite choice. You can use each rating only once.
Please return your results as follows:
Option A - Rating #
Option B - Rating #
Option C - Rating #
Option D - Rating #
Option E - Rating #
Option F - Rating #
Example:
Option A - 5
Option B - 3
Option C - 4
Option D - 6
Option E - 2
Option F - 1
The example shows that Option F was the favorite for this voter, and Option D was the least favorite.
Once all of the votes are in, I will hand-calculate the results using the IRV method. Charlie and/or I will also input the results into the web site that calculates the winner using the Condorcet method. We can then compare the results.
****
Details of voting results are in the addendum below.
****
PROPOSAL NUMBER: 001-05
1. Date proposed 1/4/05. Date amended 1/19/05. Sponsors: Charlie Green, RGGP; Art Goodtimes, SanM; Bruce Meyer, DNVR; Kent Holcomb JFGP
2. PROPOSAL SUBJECT:
GPCO discussion list policy
3. FULL PROPOSAL:
The formal policy for the Green Party of Colorado Discussion List will be determined by a vote of the GPOCC. The follow options will be set up as “candidates” for that policy:
-Option A: Less than obvious cases must be approved by the Council (List Manager’s discretion)(essentially the current policy)
-Option B: CO Greens only
-Option C: CO Greens and special cases or categories previously approved by the GPCO Council or the co-chairs
-Option D: Any self-identified Greens and special cases previously approved by the GPCO Council or the co-chairs
-Option E: Anyone expressing a Green interest
-Option F: Anyone who applies
4. BACKGROUND:
We have had several unusual (for us) requests for membership for various reasons in recent months. One was for a person involved in the campaign of a candidate of another party. This particular request raised flags for open approval to our list which we had never envisioned would attract any interest outside our Party.
To make management of the list simpler and more concrete, adding a formal policy to our P&G seems appropriate.
In any case, the current policy of screening for spammers will be continued. This is done by asking requesting individuals to submit a brief statement attesting to their Green activities. This prevents spam bots (which don’t answer messages) for joining.
5. JUSTIFICATION/GOALS:
To eliminate any semblance of arbitrariness in list membership approval.
To prevent having to take up GPCO members’ time with non-routine membership requests.
6. PROS AND CONS:
Pro / Con of officially endorsing this initiative
————————————————-
Pros for this GPCO proposal:
-A policy will be established so there will be no question of appropriate process;
-The list manager will have explicit guidelines to use for discussion list management;
-The entire GPCO won’t be repeatedly asked their opinion of allowing individuals to join the list.
Cons for this GPCO proposal:
-Some individuals may be excluded whose knowledge might be valuable;
-Some disruptive individuals may join our list from other states;
-And agents provocateur may be added to our list membership.
7. Alternatives to the proposal
-Keep the case-by-case policy we have now;
8. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES:
Bylaws of the Green Party of Colorado:
April, 2004 Bylaws Version
Addendum:
IRV summary–
Round one totals:
Option A=0, B= 7, C=8, D=1, E=1, F=0
A total of 17 votes. Would have needed 9 for a win (> 51%)
Round two totals:
A and F drop out (lowest number of #1s, and no #1 votes get reassigned because there are none to reassign).
B=7, C=8, D=1, E=1
Still a total of 17 votes. No change
Round three totals:
D and E drop out–lowest number of #1s. Interestingly the #1 in D had a second choice of E, and the #1 in E had a second choice of D. Since both of these are no longer in the running, they basically die. We now have a total of 15 votes instead of 17.
B=7 and C=8
Now C has enough votes to win the majority since 8 > 51% of 15.
*****
Condorcet/ Borda:
BORDA — N=5, #1 choice = 5, #6 choice = 0
A B C D E F
Tom 4 5 3 2 1 0
Judith 2 5 4 3 1 0
Tyler 2 4 5 3 1 0
Charlie G 0 1 2 4 5 3
Art 2 5 4 3 1 0
Charlie B 1 2 3 5 4 0
Marcia 2 5 4 3 1 0
Tanya 1 3 5 2 4 0
Jason 2 3 5 4 1 0
Dave 1 3 5 2 4 0
Brad 3 2 5 4 1 0
Bruce 2 3 5 4 1 0
Rick 2 5 4 3 1 0
Kent 1 4 5 3 2 0
Eric 4 2 5 3 1 0
Hollie 3 5 4 2 1 0
John 2 5 1 0 3 4
Totals 34 62 69 50 33 7
CONDORSET –
OVER
A B C D E F
A - 10 9 9 4 1
B 0 - 6 3 4 1
C 1 4 - 2 2 1
D 1 7 8 - 3 0
E 6 6 8 7 - 0
F 9 9 9 10 10 -
Totals 17 36 40 31 23 3