-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gpca-erwg-ed] Presidential Primary: comments Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:39:51 -0700 From: Jonathan Lundell Reply-To: gpca-erwg-ed@cagreens.org To: gpca-erwg-ed@cagreens.org References: <20040407100637.A2132@eorbit.net> These are comments on the Presidential Primary code section, dated 3/27 (SF plenary). Title & 6960. There's a sort of side-mention in 6965.6 saying that all this applies to other offices as well. That's presumably what we want, so how about making it general from the get-go, including the title? 6960.5 & Jim's concerns. In an IRV election, is "NOTA" a reasonable term? I'd have thought NOC might be more to the point. A voter can vote for one or more "of the above" and then NOC, after all. 6960.7. may -> shall 6963.5. Is the timing for nomination papers specified elsewhere? 6955. Choice voting is appropriate for elections that fill multiple seats. For our primaries, that'd only be the case for the State Board of Equalization. All the other offices want IRV, not Choice. 6965.6. This isn't a sentence. 6968. Delete first comma. 6973. This sentence reads sort of funny. "Upon filing ... shall be printed...". But nothing gets printed "upon filing"; the phrase implies timing. 6975.5. I'd strongly recommend a reference to our bylaws & procedures. It's likely to change over time, and we don't want to have to go through this again to adapt. 6975.7. No, for a lot of reasons. This raises the question, though, of whether we want to specify IRV for the presidential primary. IRV does not really rank its results; order of IRV elimination is not a particularly good measure of overall preference rank, and it certainly doesn't give proportional results for allocating delegates. -- /Jonathan Lundell.