[Pnp-wg] proxy votes

Fri, 15 Apr 2005 00:16:17 -0400

The one thing I can say for NJ is that we did a very thorough job of polling
our members at our state convention.

Liz

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Peterson" <peterson@lakeland.ws>
To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] proxy votes

> Then let's talk about *specific* things that happened in *specific*
> states that we want to make sure aren't repeated in 2008, Gary. From
> what you know, which states did not make a good faith attempt to poll
> their members, etc.?
>
> Jeff Peterson
> Wisconsin
>
> Gary wrote:
>
> >As long as a state makes a good faith attempt to poll its members, and
follows through with an effort to fairly and proportionally represent those
members, I'll shut up.
> >
> >I don't think that happened in MKE, and this is the major topic for which
I have been placed on this working group.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Gary
> >FL
> >
> >
> >---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >From: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomasleavitt@hotmail.com>
> >Date:  Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:52:29 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'm all in favor of strongly urging states to use proportional
> >>representation, but I'm not in favor of dictating that they do so, or
how
> >>and whether they bind their delegates. As someone else pointed out, if a
> >>state chooses to grant a portion of their delegation to an state-level
> >>Identity Caucus, the result may be that the state's overall delegation
> >>allocation is not proportional to whatever popular vote occurs. As a
> >>representative of the NLGC, my I see my duty being to represent the
interest
> >>of Identity Caucuses in general, and certainly this is one example of
where
> >>I should speak up.
> >>
> >>The NLGC is entitled to a vote on the CC (which inherently makes that
body
> >>non-porportional by geography), and could conceivably ask for
representation
> >>at a Presidential Nominating Convention in the future (we have not
decided
> >>to do so, but I've asked if we want to consider it).
> >>
> >>Similarly, if a state is unable to conduct a primary election, and
chooses
> >>to use local or regional caucuses, mandating that representation be
> >>proportional could yield anomalous results that the local folks running
the
> >>state may feel appropriate to adjust ... for instance, it is possible
that a
> >>caucus in a single city may attract 500 folks, and all the other
caucuses
> >>combined might attract barely as much. Take Missouri, as an arbitrary
> >>response with no basis in actuality... should a big turnout in St. Louis
> >>dictate the results, even if the preference of that individual caucus is
> >>entirely opposite the rest of the state, with a much larger total
membership
> >>(that didn't turn out)?
> >>
> >>I'm not arguing that it shouldn't ... but I am arguing that individual
> >>states should be free to set the rules and guidelines to reflect the
> >>realities and particular situations they face.
> >>
> >>It is not also without historical precedent for a primary to be strictly
> >>advisory, a "straw poll", and the actual delegates of a party from a
state
> >>to be choosen in a caucus.
> >>
> >>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>,    <peterson@lakeland.ws>
> >>>Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] proxy votes
> >>>Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:15:09 -0600
> >>>
> >>>Jeff and all,
> >>>
> >>>I'm sorry. I was under the understanding that this working group felt
that
> >>>one green one vote was not now possible, and had heard nothing (or
don't
> >>>remember hearing a statement) reaffirming our commitment to democracy
and
> >>>one green one vote.
> >>>
> >>>I also recall this working group SUGGESTING proortional representation
for
> >>>states delegates, but not requiring it,or binding past an initial round
> >>>(once again, a SUGGESTION).
> >>>
> >>>Since Jeff is now behind these ideas, should we take a straw poll to
make
> >>>our report reflect a call for moving the GPUS towards independent one
green
> >>>elections, and until this is possible, requiring proportional
> >>>representation through all rounds of voting?
> >>>
> >>>Concepts are great, but real action is better. If I gave you a name,
I'd be
> >>>considered inflammatory, so I'll let it go at that.
> >>>
> >>>My previous post was not directed at any individual, but rather the
> >>>difficulties that we face with these issues. I believe I have been
acting
> >>>in good faith in this group, and I'm disappointed that my comment
evoked
> >>>such personal negativity.
> >>>
> >>>Gary
> >>>FL
> >>>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >>>From: Jeff Peterson <peterson@lakeland.ws>
> >>>Reply-To: peterson@lakeland.ws
> >>>Date:  Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:31:23 -0500
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Gary,
> >>>>
> >>>>Name one person in the Green Party who disagrees with the concept of
one
> >>>>Green one vote or proportional representation. Until you can do that,
I
> >>>>ask that you please refrain from making such unfounded and
inflammatory
> >>>>statements. You're doing way more harm than good with this rhetoric,
> >>>>both to the chances for an amicable solution to our internal debate
and
> >>>>to the image of the Green Party.
> >>>>
> >>>>Jeff Peterson
> >>>>Wisconsin
> >>>>
> >>>>Gary wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Gary
> >>>>>FL
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>Pnp-wg mailing list
> >>>>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> >>>>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>Pnp-wg mailing list
> >>>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> >>>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Pnp-wg mailing list
> >>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> >>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> >Pnp-wg mailing list
> >Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> >http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> ---
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>