Loomio
Wed 2 May 2018 9:00PM

Assembly Voting Procedure - Compliant to Bylaws

RSW Robert Smith ⋅ West Virginia Public Seen by 4

The attached draft, makes our Officer Nomination Process, Amendments to Bylaws, and other assembly voting procedures coherent and standardized.

A new component is absentee voting, as not everyone who should be able to participate can make the Assembly.

If the document is approved, then the month of May shall be given for the party to accept officer nominations and amendment proposals.

RSW

Poll Created Wed 2 May 2018 9:03PM

Maryland Green Party 2018 Assembly Voting Procedure Closed Sun 6 May 2018 3:02AM

Outcome
by Robert Smith ⋅ West Virginia Mon 7 May 2018 4:28AM

Procedure Approved

Adopt and immediately implement the drafted "Maryland Green Party 2018 Assembly Voting Procedure" upon approval of the Coordinating Council?

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 10 MM VR MTR MC HHD KZM RL PP JR RSW
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 4 VST RS

10 of 14 people have participated (71%)

VR

Virginia Rodino Wed 2 May 2018 9:13PM

Thank you for this, Robert!

VST

Vincent S Tola Thu 3 May 2018 3:30AM

I am glad to see some thought go into our Assembly voting procedures. Thanks for taking the lead on this, Robert. A few questions and points: 1.) After the 30 day nomination deadline, it appears that people can still run for MGP officer positons as write-ins. Would we still be able to nominate from the floor, as in years past? 2.) I salute the effort to become more democratic and inclusive by means of absentee ballots. With this procedure comes important duties and responsibilities. Whose job is it to see that the ballots are made available to all Maryland Greens, and receive/verify those ballots? 3.) Section 1D) seems like a bylaw amendment. I think it could get unwieldy if we were to start splitting all of our officer positions into 2 or more positions (Co-Secretaries and Co-Treasurers, Co-Membership Coordinators, etc.) 4.) This process calls for more decisions to be made by consensus at the Assembly. Do we have our rules of process for consensus-based decision-making down pat? If not, and especially since there will be more people involved, it could get unwieldy pretty fast. 5.) The last section on the GNC needs to be rewritten IMO. It should specify how many delegates are to be elected and how we elect Alternates. I think it's not very clear, as written. 6.) Ranked Choice is great, but when it comes to multi-seat races, it gets a good bit more confusing. Who is our STV expert? CONCLUSION: The document, while well-intended, creates a good deal of bureacracy and potential headache. There are sections that should be cleaned up. It also makes substantive changes to the structure of the Coordinating Council, which should be put forward as bylaw change proposals.

RSW

Robert Smith ⋅ West Virginia Thu 3 May 2018 6:31PM

Great Questions @vincentstola !

  1. Yes candidates could still be nominated from the floor, but they would be a write-in.

  2. The C.C. is responsible to how it would like to distribute and collect absentee ballots. The easiest way at this time would be for locals to provide these ballots (created by the state party) so that members at the local unable to make assembly can still vote. The ballots would be sealed and brought to the assembly by a local rep. Alternatively we could utilize an online form, so long as there is a method of verification.

  3. We already have been splitting officer positions in multiple seats. For the past 2-3 years I know for a fact we have been doing this for the membership coordinator position, and in defacto practice it has at times been a similar case for treasurer.

  4. I know at one time we had a document on consensus based decision making. Co-chair @michaelcornell I know has been successful at facilitating the use of consensus based decision making at previous assemblies. Of course if things were to get unweidly, then we would default go to a vote.

  5. The number of delegates we get is determined by the GPUS Apportionment Tabulation Committee. It's not set in stone that we only get 2 delegates. In fact, it seems low for Maryland- I think @kevinzeese may have raised this concern as well. With regards to electing delegates, it has been routine practice that the losing candidates for delegate automatically become Alternates. No where in the bylaws is there a section on Delegates to the GNC. This document says that we will continue this process, with the caveat that someone who runs specifically for the alternate position and is elected for that position does not somehow get pushed aside by the losing candidates for Delegate. It's tricky, and maybe it could be re-written better in this document. But like I said, no where in the bylaws is there an established process for GNC delegates.

  6. It is my understanding that we have used RCV in some previous primaries and assemblies. I calculated the GPUS Youth Caucus co-chair results a year ago (there are four co-chair seats). STV is really not complicated, but it does take time. However, I honestly doubt we will have highly competitive officer elections. If we do, great, and we should definitely make sure we are prepared for that.

We can always amend this document, and we can certainly amend the bylaws. But never have the bylaws actually been amended, to my knowledge, since 2000. This procedure encourages that amendments be brought forward.