I think the best way of nominating candidates is requiring a certain percentage of delegates to back them (say 5-10%). That should generate about 10 candidates.
From there convention voting can take place. I'd say give everyone a day to vote, then announce the results. You can drop the lowest total after the each round of voting until you are left with 3-5 canddidates. From there, one candidate would be required to get a majority (as opposed to plurality of the votes.
A list of VP candidates should be provided to deleagtes before the nomination process begins.
Comments?
I don't believe a prospective vice-presidential candidate should necessarily be eliminated solely on the basis of his political affiliation. If he/she happens to be in the same party as the presidential candidate, so be it -- as long as he adheres to the principles espoused by Unity08.
The purpose is to draft a BIPARTISAN ticket, not one that simply splits one party (and thus has no chance of winning)
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
This is a slightly edited repost of a comment made moments ago in the older common thread.
The voting process that is applied in the convention is critically important. MysticMetal, SydneyOs, Kelcey Wilson and Dachannien have all noted that if preferential ballots are used people could indicate their preference amongst candidates all at once. The problem with this is that people should have the opportunity to be swayed by what transpires at the convention. At the very least, the realignment of Vice-Presidential candidates between rounds of voting might change delegates' opinions, and one hopes that, if this is truly a "party" of the sensible center, some delegates will be listening to what folks have to say, and reassessing their positions as a result. So I would say that multiple rounds are a critical element of the process.
At the same time, I urge reconsideration of the single vote per round. I would argue that preferential ballots are essential if the party is to identify a consensus candidate. Removing candidates in the early rounds who are the first choice of relatively few delegates is likely to remove exactly the sort of compromise candidates that this process is meant to promote. Instead, the convention will likely be left with a few relatively polarizing candidates and a fractured party. If instead the delegates can indicate their preferences, and the candidate who loses the most one-against-another elections is eliminated, the voting process is much more likely to end with a nominee who is a genuine centrist.
The details of the differences between these different voting procedures are rather technical. In fact, folks should be aware that the issue of "social choice" is an important field of scholarly study, and there is a great deal of information out there that might improve the voting process. I am not an expert. I can recommend the site http://www.condorcet.org, which explains this idea of a one-against-another loser. (This is often called a ranked-pair loser or a Condorcet loser.)
Rob Root
The proposed system does not allow for a clear winner. For example, the winner could have 20.4%, the next 20.3%, the next 20.2%, the next 20.0%, the last 19.1%. Or about 80% of the delegates would be opposed to the winner. That winner might have the kind of strong personality and/or platform that a devoted minority could love but the vast majority detested. An Adolph Hitler perhaps. Unity08 needs a better system. The run-off election used mainly in the South is one way. Perhaps one of the political scientists viewing all this can propose something better.
The propsed system says you have to have a clear MAJORITY (50+%) as opposed to a plurality (simply the most votes) to get the nod.
And I think it is crucial you have at least THREE candidates for the final vote.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I agree with the other comments -- please, PLEASE implement some sort of preferential balloting, ideally one that is Condorcet compliant. This is essential if the goal is to product a "Unity" candidate, not just one that happens to have the most vociferous supports.
If Unity08 is unfamiliar with this technique, I personally would be happy to help explain and implement the algorithms.
Ernest N. Prabhakar, Ph.D.
RadicalCentrism.org helps individuals, communities, and systems become sustainably centered — happy, healthy & holy — by being properly rooted in humility,
I'll say it agian....that is no different than what the two parties already do.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
conceivably, candidates for President and Vice-President could both represent the same party...whether Republican, Libertarian, Democratic, Green, etc...I think candidacy should be based on real qualifications, and clear ability to express ideology, not so much on party affiliation.
"In addition, he or she may not be a member of the same major political party "
My emphisis.
And I totally agree.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
1. We seem to think that only Republican and Democratic candidates are worth considering. Taken together they encompass only a very limited range of legitimate American political thought (and many will claim that there is no substantial difference between the two) and perpetuate the bars against third parties that have been structured to keep the Reps and Dems with a perpetual lock in office. I have a concern that if we consider only Rep and Dem candidates we will be absorbed into one or the other party. We MUST open the nominating process at all levels to third party candidates.
2. The runoff election for presidential nomination should be in place unless we have less than 10 prospective candidates - and we should end up with a final selection of no more than 5 candidates. Strongly support preferential rank-order balloting among those qualified.
3. Vice-Presidential candidate selection should be deferred until after Presidential candidates are selected. We are not selecting a "ticket" - we are selecting the best qualified from all proposals.
The way I understand it Independents are free to run (I wouldn't mind seeing Kinky Freidman). The only restriction is that the VP candidate cannot be from the same party as the Presidential candidate.
And since that is the case, all candidates should at least give delegates some idea of who their VP's would be.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I agree! Go get Kinky!
I do not agree! Party affiliation should have NO baring in who gets selected.
If you follow the logic of #3 above, the Presidential candidate with the second number of votes should automatically become VP.
That won't work given the requirement that the ticket be bi-partisan.
And, IMO, that is ESSENTIAL if Unity08 has any chance.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I don't believe a prospective vice-presidential candidate should necessarily be eliminated solely on the basis of his political affiliation. If he/she happens to be in the same party as the presidential candidate, so be it. I'm voting for a person not a party
I agree. Party affiliation should not be a criteria for selection of either President or VP. There people will have to work together (I believe that is what Unity08 is all about.
If you eliminate the requirement all you are doing is splitting one of the parties, which would be EXACTLY what the other party would want.
I beleive IT IS ESSENTIAL that the ticket be bi-partisan.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
This a repost of one in another thread. My comments apply here also.
Rule 3.3 governing the selecion of the vice-presidential candidate states in part; "In addition, he or she may not be a member of the same major political party (Democrat or Republican) as the Presidential Candidate . . ."
Which of the current front runners of the Republican and Democratic parties do you think will agree to this rule? Anyone?
For this reason, I believe our nominees may not be from the two major political parties. Who does that leave? Our rules apparently preclude any nominees for president and vice president being from outside of the two major parties.
I think there would be quite a few who would be willing to name a running mate from the other party (or an independant)
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
3.1 - When is an approximate date for this?
3.2 - When is an approximate date for this? Written statement OK. Please provide address in this rule.
3.3 - Why "not a member of same party". You are limiting your options. This is not a good requirement. Why do you mention Democratic and Republican parties? Why does party make any difference? Why would you just not exclude Democrats and Republicans? Isn't that what this is about? The whole second half of this rule is bad.
3.5 - Interesting...