Joe Roberts
SLEC Member
Don't consider this a main motion (yet), but I wanted to get ahead of the game regarding eliminating (or at least minimizing) any confusion for state convention delegates who may not be familiar with the approval voting process. I am in the process of drafting up an "explainer" flyer to distribute to tables in Abilene, but the question always comes up on how best to pair NOTA with a process that allows for approving multiple candidates on a single ballot. Using OpaVote complicates matters, because approval voting mode does not prevent a voter from simultaneously approving a human candidate while voting "yes" on NOTA.
Also, since NOTA is technically a vote AGAINST all of the candidates, those "AGAINST" votes do not get attributed by OpaVote to the candidates in question. This leaves open the possibility of someone who would otherwise be disqualified by not having a majority of "FOR" votes being considered as a delegate or an alternate.
Here's an example of what I mean:
Joe Roberts is on the ballot. He gets 50 "FOR" votes and 49 "AGAINST" votes. Sean Sparkman, however, voted "NOTA" and left the rest of the ballot blank (as he should have if he really wants none of them to win). If that NOTA vote were counted as an "AGAINST" vote (as it should be), that controversial candidate would have been eliminated as a possible delegate or alternate.
We didn't address that aspect in 2024, and I don't know if any of the delegates actually voted "NOTA" for it to matter. We DID have to deal with the possibility of someone voting "NOTA" and then casting a vote for a human candidate. If OpaVote is unable to identify who voted that way, it can't even be ruled a "spoiled ballot" and tossed out.
In my view, the simplest option would be not to have "NOTA" as a literal candidate listed on the ballot, and to have the convention chair instruct any delegates wishing to vote "NOTA" to vote against every single candidate on the ballot. That would solve both of the problems above, but I want to hear from the "NOTA purists" on not having a line item for it on the ballot. The disadvantage, of course, is that there will be no record of someone actually having chosen "none of the above." Feel free to weigh in with your take.
(For the record, this isn't your typical "Libertarian obsessing about minutiae' scenario. In my experience, we spend an inordinate amount of time DURING each state convention trying to figure this out on the fly, and we could save that time by establishing a consistent approach beforehand. In addition, I am pretty dismayed at how many of our delegates do not understand how approval voting works. In 2024, one of our state officer candidates received more "AGAINST" votes than "FOR" votes, and considering who the person in question is, I strongly suspect that would not have been the case if people understood that voting for your favorite does not require you to vote against your second choice. So, the desire for efficiency and delegate education motivated me to bring this up.)
Also, since NOTA is technically a vote AGAINST all of the candidates, those "AGAINST" votes do not get attributed by OpaVote to the candidates in question. This leaves open the possibility of someone who would otherwise be disqualified by not having a majority of "FOR" votes being considered as a delegate or an alternate.
Here's an example of what I mean:
Joe Roberts is on the ballot. He gets 50 "FOR" votes and 49 "AGAINST" votes. Sean Sparkman, however, voted "NOTA" and left the rest of the ballot blank (as he should have if he really wants none of them to win). If that NOTA vote were counted as an "AGAINST" vote (as it should be), that controversial candidate would have been eliminated as a possible delegate or alternate.
We didn't address that aspect in 2024, and I don't know if any of the delegates actually voted "NOTA" for it to matter. We DID have to deal with the possibility of someone voting "NOTA" and then casting a vote for a human candidate. If OpaVote is unable to identify who voted that way, it can't even be ruled a "spoiled ballot" and tossed out.
In my view, the simplest option would be not to have "NOTA" as a literal candidate listed on the ballot, and to have the convention chair instruct any delegates wishing to vote "NOTA" to vote against every single candidate on the ballot. That would solve both of the problems above, but I want to hear from the "NOTA purists" on not having a line item for it on the ballot. The disadvantage, of course, is that there will be no record of someone actually having chosen "none of the above." Feel free to weigh in with your take.
(For the record, this isn't your typical "Libertarian obsessing about minutiae' scenario. In my experience, we spend an inordinate amount of time DURING each state convention trying to figure this out on the fly, and we could save that time by establishing a consistent approach beforehand. In addition, I am pretty dismayed at how many of our delegates do not understand how approval voting works. In 2024, one of our state officer candidates received more "AGAINST" votes than "FOR" votes, and considering who the person in question is, I strongly suspect that would not have been the case if people understood that voting for your favorite does not require you to vote against your second choice. So, the desire for efficiency and delegate education motivated me to bring this up.)
