PROPOSAL NUMBER: 003-05
Preface:
This is a special vote in that our votes were 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.
Results are in addendum below
****
PROPOSAL NUMBER: 003-05
1. Date proposed 02/03/2005; Date Amended 02/22/2005. Sponsors: Green Party of Jefferson County
- Tanya Ishikawa
- Dave Chandler
- Kent Holcomb
2. PROPOSAL SUBJECT:
Selection of a process by which the GPOC Legislative Committee can more-effectively respond to rulemaking by the State Legislature.
3. FULL PROPOSAL:
The sponsors are proposing four possible scenarios for handling GPOC Legislative Committee actions.
-Option A: Make no changes to the existing process - the Legislative Committee must go through the GPOC Council before taking action on State Legislative rulemaking. The present process takes at least seven days if agreement is reached, and fourteen days if a vote is necessary.
-Option B: Add a new section to the GPOC Procedures and Guidlines concerning the submission of proposals by the GPOC Legislative Committee. The new section would read as follows:
3.5.8 Proposals submitted by the GPOC Lesislative Committee shall be given special consideration. Due to the dynamic environment of the Colorado legislative process, the Legislative Committee must be able to react quickly to any changes of schedule. These proposals will be named distinctly by placing a capital “L” before the proposal number (for identification purposes), and the numbering system will not be intermingled with the other proposals.
Proposals will be given a five day voting window. Discussion is encouraged during this window. A tally of the votes will be taken after the fifth day. A 60% approval is needed for the proposal to pass. There is no minimum number of votes needed, and no minimum number of locals need cast a vote.
-Option C: add a new section to the GPOC Procedures and Guidlines concerning the submission of proposals by the GPOC Legislative Committee. The new section would read as follows:
3.5.8 Proposals submitted by the GPOC Legislative Committee shall be given special consideration. Due to the dynamic environment of the Colorado legislative process, the Legislative Committee must be able to react quickly to any changes of schedule. These proposals will be named distinctly by placing a capital “L” before the proposal number (for identification purposes), and the numbering system will not be intermingled with the other proposals.
Proposals will be given a three day window whereby the Legislative proposal is submitted to the GPOC Council, and the Council is given an opportunity to block. If there is a block, a five day voting period will be held. A tally of the votes will be taken after the fifth day. A 60% approval is needed for the proposal to pass. There is no minimum number of votes needed, and no minimum number of locals need cast a vote.
-Option D: Let the Legislative Committee decide when to take action, and seek approval from the Co-Chair(s). If the Co-Chair(s) disagree then no action is taken.
-Option E: Let the Legislative commitee decide when to take action on their own, but then the Committee must submit details of the action to the GPOCC for review and critique.
-Option F: Let the Legislative Commitee decide when to take action on their own.
4. BACKGROUND:
- The existing committee needs a much quicker process to competently perform its job. Normal processing of proposals can take anywhere from 7 to 14 days.
5. JUSTIFICATION/GOALS:
These proposals, if processed quickly, can give the GPCO members time to make necessary calls and emails to Party Members and State representatives.
6. PROS AND CONS:
Pro / Con of officially endorsing this initiative
————————————————-
Pros for this GPCO proposal:
- The GPCO can become a more-effective force in dealing with the CO Legislature.
Cons for this GPCO proposal:
- Depending on the outcome of the vote, we may lose some representation from GPOC locals–for instance those choices that exclude the Council from being a part of the process.
7. Alternatives to the proposal
Not applicable since all alternatives will be on the voting “ballot”.
8. REFERENCES AND RESOURCES:
Bylaws of the Green Party of Colorado:
Green Party of Colorado Bylaws 2005
To review the GPCO Procedures and Guidelines:
********
Addendum: IRV summary–
Round one totals:
Option A=0, B= 2, C=3, D=7, E=5, F=0
A total of 16 votes. Would have needed 10 for a win (> 60%)
Round two totals:
The B vote was moved to Sunny’s second choice, D.
C=3, D=8, E=5
No winner.
Round three totals:
Tom’s C to D (via B & A), Judith’s C to E (via B), Hollie’s C to D (via B)
D=10 and E=6
Now D has enough votes to win the majority.
*****
Borda:
A B C D E F
Tom 3 4 5 2 1 0
Judith 1 4 5 2 3 0
Sunny 1 5 3 4 2 0
Charlie G 1 3 4 5 2 0
Art 0 2 3 5 4 0
Charlie B 0 1 2 3 5 4
Marcia 0 2 3 5 4 1
Tanya 0 1 2 5 4 3
Jason 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dave 0 3 4 5 2 1
Brad 0 1 2 4 5 3
Bruce 0 1 2 4 5 3
Rick 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kent 0 1 2 4 5 3
Eric 1 2 3 4 5 0
Hollie 0 4 5 3 2 0
John 2 1 0 5 4 3
Bruce Mc. 0 1 3 5 4 2
Totals 9 36 48 65 57 23
D wins.
CONDORSET –
OVER
A B C D E F
A - 15 15 14 15 9
B 1 - 9 13 10 6
C 1 2 - 13 10 5
D 1 4 3 - 7 1
E 1 6 6 10 - 0
F 5 9 10 15 16 -
Totals 9 36 43 65 58 21
D wins.