Proposal to Resolve the 2021 MGP Officer Election Dispute

VST Vincent S Tola Public Seen by 19

Let's move forward!


Poll Created Thu 16 Sep 2021 1:19AM

Proposal to Resolve the 2021 MGP Officer Election Dispute Closed Thu 23 Sep 2021 1:03AM

Proposal to Resolve the 2021 MGP Officer Election dispute.

The MGP shall enter its ballot data into Opavote, and have the results tabulated according to a Single-Transferable Vote (STV), Scottish method.

The MGP shall accept as valid the results determined by Opavote.

The Bylaws Review and Rules Committee shall propose rules for future MGP Officer elections, which must be approved by the Coordinating Council by the end of April 2022. 


Results Option % of points Voters
Abstain 16.7% 3 J ND ASE
Disagree 22.2% 4 MH OR DD JS
Undecided 0% 1 MGP

18 of 19 people have participated (94%)


Andrew S Eneim
Thu 16 Sep 2021 1:20AM

I can't in good conscience support changing the way the election is tabulated months after it occurred. We had a set of rules that were sent out (and I read when voting as a rank-and-file member) and an independent tabulator. It is wrong to change that after the election occurs, and that fault falls on those who have not prepared the MGP for being a sustainable party.


Matt Hand
Thu 16 Sep 2021 1:20AM

In an election dominated by the failures of unilateral decision-making, this proposal asks us to legitimize unauthorized actions already performed by some members of the Council without the knowledge of all of us. I say "NO".

This proposal also fails to meet the guidelines in our Bylaws that call for the Council to draft and apply procedures for dispute resolution, including an appeals process.


Nailah Dawkins
Thu 16 Sep 2021 1:20AM

What is 1D? It was rank choice and now it's not. Disclosing of the voting results?


Thu 16 Sep 2021 1:20AM

I'm curious as to the implications of deciding post-election how winners are determined. I thought the election dispute had been settled.


Mary Tyrtle Rooker Fri 17 Sep 2021 3:10PM

Not sure why this requires 2/3 when the other election proposals didn't, and this is just following our ballot rules and 1A.


Matt Hand Mon 20 Sep 2021 7:07PM

Because this is a "substantive issue" it is correctly set to require 2/3rds approval to pass.


Vincent S Tola Mon 20 Sep 2021 9:43PM

I respect Andrew's reasons for not supporting this proposal. However, I would point out that the published rules were never approved by the CC, and they changed past practice in a way that violated our bylaws (i.e., by getting rid of proportional voting). The ballots, which did, indeed, link to Rule 1D, also stated that we were using STV. Greens went into the vote with differing understandings of the tabulation rules. Most probably didn't think that much about the tabulation rules, and just ranked their preferences. When all was said and done, there were clear results. The ballots themselves are not being contested. We're struggling over the tabulation method, and the process by which the rules were published. We can choose a single-block, winner take all method, and get one result, or we can choose proportional representation, and get a different result. Our bylaws are clear that we are to use proportional representation. All that said, I do respect everyone's reasons for voting the way they did ... A final question that this proposal seeks to answer is, "Do we want to continue to spend precious time and energy on this dispute, or are we ready to move on?" ... My hope is that we do, in fact, move on.


Vincent S Tola Mon 20 Sep 2021 9:50PM

Process based observation. Loomio is counting the "Abstain" votes toward the vote total. So, in effect, an "abstain" vote is counting as a "No" vote. My understanding is that we pass substantive measures by reaching 2/3 of the Yes/No vote total (Abstentions don't count toward anything because they're a statement that, "I'm not voting Yes or No on this). ... I guess this is another issue that we'll need to pass to the Bylaws Review and Rules Committee ASAP. (sigh).


Timothy Willard, Maryland alternate Tue 21 Sep 2021 10:59AM

A two thirds majority means two thirds of the yes and no votes. It makes no sense to county abstain votes as no votes, they're not the same. The National Green Party doesn't count abstain votes--nobody does. The fact that loomio gives the percentage of each kind of vote doesn't change the fact the there were 11 yes votes and 4 no votes which is more than 2/3. Let's not invent problems where there are none.