[Pnp-wg] Re: virtual convention ? (formerly 'So the '04processwas rigged')
Thomas Leavitt
thomasleavitt@hotmail.com
Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:15:12 -0700
If a state is going to remove all discretion from delegates, why go to the
expense and hassle of sending them? Why not just send a single individual
with a proxy for the other delegates, and have him or her cast the states
votes as dictated by a computer program?/
... what about Platform issues? Are delegates to be bound in a similar
fashion on platform votes? If so, then essentially the state (or the
individual in question) is paying for a vacation for most of their
delegates.
Why should California go to the hassle and expense of shipping 137 bodies
across the country under these circumstances? Why have a physical convention
at all? We could just write a computer program, input the preferences of
each state, and then go with the candidate and platform thus selected,
saving a ton of time and energy, ecological impact, money, etc.
Regards,
Thomas Leavitt
--
Thomas Leavitt -- thomasleavitt@hotmail.com, Sr. Systems Admin For Hire
Resume at http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/resume/
Wired since 1981. Internet-enabled since 1990. Web-enabled since 1993.
Older, wiser, and poorer, post-crash. :)
>From: "Gary" <hecker@ecoisp.com>
>Reply-To: <hecker@ecoisp.com>
>To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>, "Phil Huckelberry" <phil@mcleancountygreens.org>
>Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Re: virtual convention ? (formerly 'So the
>'04processwas rigged')
>Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:38:02 -0600
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from greens.org ([216.27.184.14]) by mc7-f18.hotmail.com with
>Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 6 Apr 2005 15:40:01 -0700
>Received: (qmail 21563 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2005 22:40:02 -0000
>Received: from localhost (HELO petra-k.cagreens.org) (127.0.0.1) by
>localhost with SMTP; 6 Apr 2005 22:40:02 -0000
>Received: (qmail 21449 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2005 22:38:05 -0000
>Received: from mail.ecoisp.com (HELO ecoisp.com) (216.126.227.137) by
>cesarchavez.cagreens.org with SMTP; 6 Apr 2005 22:38:05 -0000
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jE5e2UsX6JK4yoqgEFb/yVo/9B+VlxX8ag=
>Return-Path: <hecker@ecoisp.com>
>Delivered-To: usgp-mx-pnp-wg@gp-us.org
>X-Mailer: <IMail v8.12>
>Errors-To: pnp-wg-admin@lists.gp-us.org
>X-BeenThere: pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:pnp-wg-request@lists.gp-us.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg>,<mailto:pnp-wg-request@lists.gp-us.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: list for working group, nominating process
><pnp-wg.lists.gp-us.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg>,<mailto:pnp-wg-request@lists.gp-us.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/pnp-wg/>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2005 22:40:01.0763 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[91D1A330:01C53AF9]
>
>Phil,
>
>I agree that devil's advocates can raise awareness of problems, but I also
>don't want to allow potential problems to detract from the overall purpose
>of the group, which is to find a better way to hold our convention.
>
>The binding/instruction of delegates is indeed a sticky issue. I am, as you
>know, a strong state's rights person. But I'm an even stronger individual
>rights person. We can divvie up the number of delegates based on some
>arcane formula yet to be devised, and I'll probably be able to live with
>it, and if not support it, at least not fight it. The larger issue is, can
>the GPUS REQUIRE some sort of polling of individuals, and also REQUIRE some
>method of proportionally representing those ballots at the convention? The
>problem as I see it is, the GP Platform supports grassroots democracy, but
>we're still talking about an electoral college for our own candidates. So,
>since there seems to be too much resistance to somehow devising a method
>for each Green to individually cast a ballot, I'd like to make the
>delegates at least responsible for representing those individual Green
>ballots in some form of proportionality.If Candidate A receives 30% of the
>popular vote in state Zulu, how can Zulu cast 90% of its votes for B in the
>first round? Unfortunately, you're not likely to hear complaints about how
>voting went from individual greens. most aren't plugged in to the system,
>or are just uninterested. That soesn't mean we shouldn't protect their
>interests.
>
>So can the GPUS reuire showing state ballot results prior to the
>convention? One part of me, the state Co-Chair, says no. But the Local
>Co-Chair part of me says yes, if it ensures my individual Greens are
>properly represented at a nominating convention.
>
>I don't know. Perhaps we could throw that into the aportionment equation-
>if you don't poll your members, and do everything at one primary meeting,
>then you lose 50% of your delegates, etc. If you do a mailing, you get them
>all.
>
>I have intentionally avoided casting aspersions about Milwaukee. I was
>apalled at the way things went, as was the entire FL delegation.I also
>agree that the convention was "mangled", and, while I believe there were
>disengenuous individuals there, I have no accusations which I can prove, so
>I prefer to make none. I wasn't a delegate in 2003, and I can categorically
>state that the FL CC reps let us down in this respect.In fact, two of our
>reps voted Yes on the floor rules, even though the state CC categorically
>rejected them. We have rectified that problem.
>
>This Working Group can ask for the tools you missed in 2003/4. Perhaps we
>could develop an easy to use ballot counting program which will aid in
>apportioning votes in each round. We may have to subsidize mailing ballots
>to some/all states.
>
>Phil, I think we can ALL agree that we want strong, independent candidates
>in 'o8.As well as agreeing that the GPUS needs to make massive changes in
>procedures, education and campaigning.I hope you're right that things will
>be different next time. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that every state
>would agree with you.
>
>Sorry for the lenth of this, and I hope I answered all your questions.
>
>Gary Hecker
>FL
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: "Phil Huckelberry" <phil@mcleancountygreens.org>
>Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:02:49 -0500 (CDT)
>
> >I need to make it clear that I'm not arguing for a position that I
> >necessarily want to see. A lot of what I'm doing is regurgitating points
> >that were brought up in 2004 that we never had good answers for. More
> >than anything, I'm playing devil's advocate. I realize that by doing so
> >and by deconstructing some arguments I may appear rude but that is
> >absolutely not the intention. On the contrary, I'm trying to boil
> >everything down so we can all be on the same page.
> >
> >This message also gets quite lengthy because in the end I tangent a great
> >deal.
> >
> >Elizabeth Arnone:
> >> I'm not clear on how delegates found out that that candidate was not
> >> willing to seek the nomination at the convention.
> >>
> >> It seems to me all these things should be known beforehand. It doesn't
> >> seem fair that delegates should not know what they're going to face
>when
> >> they get to a convention.
> >
> >People literally did not know for sure until the day of the presidential
> >nominating convention itself whether Nader would change his mind and
> >express a willingness to accept the nomination. This is in part because
> >many of his supporters insisted that Nader's mind could be changed; some
> >of his supporters even insisted that we should give him the nomination
> >whether he wanted it or not. Note I am not expressing a judgment about
> >this, but merely stating that this is what the reality of the situation
> >was.
> >
> >I agree that it does not seem fair that delegates would not know what
> >they're going to face when they get to a convention. But if they get to
>a
> >convention and they are confronted with something unexpected - and they
> >don't appreciate that - they will reject the new thing they're confronted
> >with.
> >
> >By saying this I am implicitly arguing that delegates are acting as
> >representatives - not merely proxies - of their state parties. There is
>a
> >legitimate question, which Steve Kramer and others have brought up, about
> >what precisely the role of a delegate is. What I have consistently
>argued
> >is that it's up to the state parties themselves whether they want to give
> >strong instructions, where all decisions are basically made for the
> >delegates, or weak instructions, where delegates are given preferences
>but
> >told to do their best to faithfully represent their state parties.
> >Neither way is necessarily more or less democratic - both ways can, under
> >some circumstances, prove to be utter failures at representing the rank
> >and file members of state parties. So leave the decision as to which way
> >to go up to the state parties themselves. I'd stress here that although
> >there were complaints about people "not representing the grassroots" at
> >Milwaukee, I've still only seen one state party openly complain that
>their
> >delegates failed to represent them, and that was Utah.
> >
> >Gary Hecker:
> >> Phil,
> >>
> >> I think what most of us are looking for is an announced intention to
> >> relfect the desires of the grassroots voter in situations that are
> >> reasonably forseeable. This would, of course, preclude "dark horse"
> >> candidates, but I feel confident that such a candidate would be pretty
> >> amazing to come from out of nowhere and secure a nomination.
> >
> >I feel the same way. The point I would stress here is that the delegates
> >themselves, or their state parties through their binding mechanisms - not
> >us as rulemakers for the national party - are the ones who should be in a
> >position to evaluate such situations. I'm curious as to whether you
>agree
> >or disagree on this point. I am surprised that after the acrimony over
> >Milwaukee that there are actually suggestions being made to weaken the
> >power of the state parties and the delegates, when so many of the
> >complaints were that the national party was too stronghanded. And when I
> >say surprised, I mean surprised, I'm not making accusations. I'm
>honestly
> >a little confused over what the "problem" is here that we're seeking to
> >address.
> >
> >> As for candidates stepping down for another, this in no way requires
> >> states to respect the desires of said candidates, and their voting
> >> should treat her as just another eliminated candidate.
> >
> >I agree.
> >
> >> I fear that if we do not address the proportional representation issue,
> >> we are going to see a major meltdown in 2008 that makes last year seem
> >> like a minor tiff.
> >
> >Can you explain what you mean by the "proportional representation issue"?
> >I am not at all clear as to what the issue is. Are you saying that some
> >states did not apportion delegate instructions on a proportional basis?
>I
> >have not previously heard this argument raised in such a way and I want
>to
> >make sure I understand what you're getting at.
> >
> >> In addition to acreditation issues, we are likely to see more states
> >> refute the validity of the convention, and its candidate.And making
> >> an amendment to the GPUS bylaws requiring states to place its candidate
> >> on the ballot will have little effect, and states may leave the party.
> >
> >The bylaws already require states to place the candidate on the ballot.
> >
> >> I would hope that states that desire maximum leeway for their delegates
> >> place "Let the Delegates Decide" on their ballots, which, in my mind
> >> would allow that state to do just that (with the percentage of votes it
> >> received, of course).
> >
> >Many states did this by sending delegates who voted as "Uncommitted" in
> >the first round at Milwaukee. The problem this created was that some
> >delegates were allowed to be free actors and others were bound - from the
> >same state. And most state parties did not have a good system in place
> >for deciding who would represent which position.
> >
> >I'll expand on this latter point, because I know this has been
> >contentious. Many state parties simply sent whoever was able and willing
> >to go. In some cases, they sent whoever was able and willing to pay
>their
> >own way. I believe this was the case with both Vermont and Colorado, as
> >examples. Charlie has even said that Colorado delegates who carried
> >proxies essentially got two votes, because they weren't given proxy
> >instructions.
> >
> >This brings me to another point which I do not think has been emphasized
> >enough. Most of our state parties did not know what they were doing in
> >2004. They did not know how to conduct a preference vote and had to come
> >up with a plan from scratch. They did not know how to bind delegates and
> >some of them wound up not bothering at all. The national party provided
> >zero guidance and assistance to these states - they were all told,
>states'
> >rights, you're on your own. It was a horrible way of handling the
> >situation, and I complained about it a lot then and have been
>consistently
> >complaining about it since. This has been my number one complaint about
> >the process in 2004. I believe that this failure on the part of the
> >national party to work with state parties at all created a situation
>where
> >many state parties fell back to using isolated state conventions for
> >holding their primary vote, didn't bind their delegates and all... and
>the
> >end result was two-fold. First, states that did a much better job of
> >trying to get good preference votes were pretty ticked off. Second,
> >entire state delegations showed up voting one way or another. But this
> >isn't because they failed to proportion themselves; their state
> >conventions literally went 100% one way (Nebraska) or the other (Nevada).
> >It was a horrible way to go about doing things. It's not going to happen
> >again. And I wish I could get people to understand the primacy of all of
> >these points because I believe that ALL OF YOU agree with me that we
> >should never let these isolated state conventions with limited access to
> >information make these sorts of decisions again. I am putting my own
> >state party at the top of the list of those who screwed up
>_______________________________________________
>Pnp-wg mailing list
>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg