[Pnp-wg] proxy votes

[Gary]

It's not unfair to ask for equal representation. Which is why I am for a minimal form of delegation (i.e. ONE, to certify hte state's ballot), which is best for the poorest states and provides real equality.

We can rehash everything, but it's unnecessary. Phil believes in massive changes possible at the convention. I think it's unwise to react to some last minute shenanigans, and it scares me that a small group of people might radically alter their ballots based on something relatively minor like talking to a candidate's representative. This is not democracy.

I think it's great to ASK states to send lots of delegates. I just don't think we should be TELLING them they need to do so to be represented.Technology has improved immensely, and we should be incorporating it to save resources.

Funding isn't the only factor, either. There are environmental and personal factors (time and families) to be considered. Perhaps we should be discussing a bridging action, where we have regional conventions linked by phone/video to increase participation but decrease these negative factors.See, I'm willing to compromise!

Gary
FL


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Phil Huckelberry" <phil@mcleancountygreens.org>
Date:  Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:20:14 -0500 (CDT)

>Gary Hecker writes:
>> It would be wonderful if the GPUS could finance the delegates, but
>> realistically, it isn't going to happen in any sort of meaningful way.
>
>It certainly didn't last year.  Although the Diversity Committee did give
>"grants", all the grants covered was the cost of registration.
>
>The thing to note here is that GPUS is not subsidized in any form by the
>state parties.  Those registrations "paid the way" for much of the
>convention.  It's the closest thing _to_ subsidization that we have.  More
>on this below.
>
>> At the same time, it doesn't help me in FL to say, "get started on
>> fundraising early". Our problem is, FL doesn't choose to spend its
>> fundraising efforts on sending delegates to the Convention. We're having a
>> knock down drag out battle now over what to do with what's in our
>> treasury. Our locals are currently operating solo, which also includes
>> fundraising. I would imagine there are many states in the same situation.
>>
>> It seems unfair to me that the GPUS can't agree to one Green one vote or
>> proportional representation, but feels comfortable with telling states how
>> many delegates they must fund in order to be represented.
>
>I think the discussion on this list has made it clear that "can't agree to
>proportional representation" is in error.
>
>As for the latter point, I guess I'm forced to sharply disagree with the
>suggestion inherent.  It's far from unreasonable to tell state parties
>they must send representatives in order to be represented.  We've already
>discussed at some length on this list how decisions are liable to be made
>at the convention by (s)elected delegates and it's vitally important for
>them to actually _be there_ in order to be sufficiently informed to make
>that decision.  If a state party decides that engaging other delegates at
>the national level and making informed decisions at the national
>convention is a low priority, that's that state party's perogative, but
>equal representation compels equal participation, doesn't it?  That's how
>democracy is supposed to function.  How is it out of line to ask state
>parties to participate equally?
>
>Obviously, the overall issue is funding.  That's yet another thing that
>this working group is charged to discuss.  We haven't discussed that much
>at all.  We certainly ought to.  Let's estimate that last year it cost an
>average delegate $500 to attend the convention (not counting time off from
>work or anything equivalent.)  Are there ways to alleviate that cost? 
>Ways to alleviate the cost of the convention?  Perhaps we're putting the
>cart before the ox here and we should be talking more about convention
>logistics before we really tackle the proxy issue.
>
>Phil Huckelberry
>Illinois Green Party
>_______________________________________________
>Pnp-wg mailing list
>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>