[Pnp-wg] Fw: Outline of options - my responses
Elizabeth Arnone
elizarnone@comcast.net
Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:11:31 -0400
Jeff, you're certainly entitled to your point of view as I am to mine.
I thought we might keep this off line since this didn't seem to be a matter
for discussion by the group.
As far as voting strength goes it has not been decided as yet whether to
include Nader's numbers in our counts, so whether you want to make it small
"g" or big "g" is just a mater of semantics.
Perhaps we need another category for a candidate who was our presidential
candidate for two terms than wasn't and because of his values received a way
larger percentage of green votes than the partys' own candidate who won the
nomination at the convention? It is a stretch of the imagination by any
means and certainly boggles my mind. So you have to wonder who gets the big
"g".
Liz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Peterson" <peterson@lakeland.ws>
To: "Elizabeth Arnone" <elizarnone@comcast.net>
Cc: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Fw: Outline of options - my responses
> Shouldn't that be a small-g "green" for Nader? He's not a party member,
> nor was he running on the Green Party ballot anywhere in the country
> last year. In fact, he took votes away from the Green Party candidate in
> many states.
>
> The criteria for whether a candidate is big-g "Green" should be a little
> more strict than whether they espouse Green values; they should also
> have our endorsement or, in the case of president, they should be our
> nominee. Otherwise they are not "Green" candidates.
>
> Jeff Peterson
> Wisconsin
>
> Elizabeth Arnone wrote:
>
> >Jeff, I used a portion of the Miller/Hill piece to make a point and offer
my
> >suggestion as a response. I acknowledge Phil's response.
> >
> >Phil goes on to mention that a much fairer assessment of "Green strength"
in
> >a state is not the number of registered Greens but rather the number of
> >people who have actually voted for Green Candidates. I would tend to
agree
> >with that assessment if it were to include those people who voted for
Nader
> >as I consider him as Green as anybody and more than some.
> >
> >Liz
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Jeff Peterson" <peterson@lakeland.ws>
> >To: "Elizabeth Arnone" <elizarnone@comcast.net>
> >Cc: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> >Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:29 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Fw: Outline of options - my responses
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Elizabeth,
> >>
> >>Did you even read Phil's critique of the Miller/Hill article? You repeat
> >>many of their misleading statements almost verbatim in your response to
> >>Steve's outline.
> >>
> >>I'll repost Phil's piece again below.
> >>
> >>Jeff Peterson
> >>Wisconsin
> >>
> >>
> >> Response to Hill/Miller
> >>
> >>Much of the Miller/Hill piece
> >><http://www.counterpunch.org/miller08072004.html> relies on statements
> >>presented as clear fact which are actually unsubstantiated arguments.
> >>
> >> "In five states, registered Green Party members, who are the rank
> >> and file of the party, had the opportunity to vote in a presidential
> >> primary. These five primaries represent the majority of registered
> >> Greens in the country."
> >>
> >>There are two major problems with this statement. First, citizens do not
> >>have the opportunity to register as a Green in most states (in some
> >>states, there is no partisan registration at all.) Therefore, "the
> >>majority of registered Greens in the country" is a meaningless term
> >>because it does not mean "the majority of Greens in the country" or
> >>anything equivalent. While it may be true that there are more registered
> >>Greens combined in these five states (California, Massachusetts, New
> >>Mexico, District of Columbia, and Rhode Island) than in all other states
> >>which allow people to register as Greens, this should not be interpreted
> >>as meaning that there are more Greens in these five states than in the
> >>entire rest of the country.
> >>
> >>Second, it is highly inappropriate to refer to "registered Green Party
> >>members" as "the rank and file of the party". This is a narrow
> >>definition of "rank and file" that does not include people who have
> >>filled out membership forms to join the Green Party in states where the
> >>state uses a membership-based system and does not account for tens of
> >>thousands of people who may not be members of state parties, but who
> >>would register as a Green if they lived in state where that was
> >>possible. To eliminate these people from consideration would require
> >>arguing that state parties should be punished if their state laws do not
> >>allow third party registration (or, for that matter, any kind of
> >>registration), and in turn, do not allow for third parties to
> >>participate in primaries.
> >>
> >>A much fairer assessment of "Green strength" in a state is not the
> >>number of registered Greens but rather the number of people who have
> >>actually voted for Green candidates. Although this is bound to include
> >>people who do not self-identify as Green, it is reasonable to expect
> >>that similar states will have sufficiently similar ratios of non-Greens
> >>voting for Green candidates for statewide office, so using vote totals
> >>provides a reasonably accurate assessment of "Green strength".
> >>
> >> "Overall, the total primary vote for candidates who support
> >> Nader/Camejo was over 83% compared to Cobb's 12.2%. Where Greens
> >> actually were able to vote, Cobb was roundly defeated."
> >>
> >>This is a false statement, as Miller and Hill conducted no research
> >>whatsoever to ascertain that individuals voting for Peter Camejo, Lorna
> >>Salzman, or Carol Miller intended for their votes to be interpreted as a
> >>preference for a Nader/Camejo independent campaign instead of a Cobb
> >>nomination. Suggesting that the over 35,000 people who voted for one of
> >>these three individuals who did not actually seek the Green Party
> >>nomination preferred that the Green Party not field a presidential
> >>ticket in 2004 but merely endorse Nader/Camejo  a ticket that did not
> >>actually form until the week of the Green national convention is simply
> >>not borne out by fact.
> >>
> >>Another serious problem with this argument is that there was no "No
> >>Candidate" or "None of the Above" option available on these primary
> >>ballots, except in the District of Columbia. Therefore, voters were
> >>compelled to choose from the available options. There can be no doubt
> >>that voters in California preferred Camejo to Cobb.
> >>
> >>But Camejo did not eventually seek the nomination, and there is
> >>absolutely no evidence that any more than a handful of Greens in
> >>California understood a vote for Camejo to represent an eventual vote
> >>for No Nominee and a Nader endorsement. At the time of the California
> >>primary, Ralph Nader had not specifically stated whether he would accept
> >>the Green Party's nomination or not. Peter Camejo himself stated that he
> >>was providing his name as a stand-in candidate to allow delegates to
> >>vote their conscience in Milwaukee.
> >>
> >> "In all other states Green Party delegates were chosen at nominating
> >> meetings."
> >>
> >>Some states used mail-in ballots or online voting either instead of, or
> >>in addition to, voting at state conventions. Other states, including
> >>Wisconsin and Maine, held regional caucuses.
> >>
> >> "Nor did the web site explain the delegate formula or justify the
> >> size of each state's delegation so that Greens could follow the
> >> process. In fact the formula completely ignores the number of Greens
> >> registered in each state as a determinate for the number of
> >> delegates. Most Greens assumed that delegates were proportioned
> >> according to a one-person one-vote system as any democratic
> >> organization would normally assume."
> >>
> >>The delegate formula was available on the web site, though perhaps not
> >>in the most ideal of places. Still, the formula had been finalized
> >>months before the first preference votes, and state parties were very
> >>aware that no "one-person one-vote" system was to be used. Miller and
> >>Hill provide no evidence whatsoever that there was ever any widespread
> >>confusion over the delegate formula, or that a large number of Greens
> >>assumed anything about how state voting strength had been proportioned.
> >>
> >> "In caucuses where the turnout was relatively large, Cobb often did
> >> poorly. But in some cases Cobb supporters were able to get around
> >> their low vote count by packing the delegation selection. For
> >> example in Maine, where Nader's name was on the ballot, Nader
> >> defeated Cobb 52 to 42 (the remaining 65 votes went to 13 other
> >> candidates). In percentage, these votes represent 33% for Nader and
> >> 26% for Cobb. Yet during the vote at the convention in Milwaukee, 18
> >> out of 19 Maine delegates voted for Cobb and 1 voted for Nader, or
> >> 95% for Cobb and 5% for Nader."
> >>
> >>The 33% of participating Greens in Maine who voted for Nader may or may
> >>not have preferred for the national convention to choose not to nominate
> >>anyone and in turn endorse Nader. Miller and Hill clearly suggest that
> >>this is how their intention should be interpreted, but offer no evidence
> >>to this effect.
> >>
> >>It is also important to stress that it was commonly assumed well in
> >>advance that the Green Party would hold a national convention at which
> >>delegates would cast votes. Delegates are supposed to represent the
> >>Greens in their state. Miller and Hill seem to suggest that it is
> >>inappropriate for a delegate to cast a different vote from one round to
> >>another, but in fact, delegates were presented with a different question
> >>from one round to another.
> >>
> >>In Maine, for example, voters were presented with the possibility that
> >>Nader would accept the party's nomination. In Milwaukee, the Maine
> >>delegates were confronted with the reality that he would not. They
> >>dutifully cast their votes as mandated in the first round, and, to the
> >>best of their ability, when confronted with a different question (only
> >>Cobb, Mesplay, Beemon, and "No Nominee" appeared on the second-round
> >>ballot), they cast their votes in the second round in accordance with
> >>the rules developed by the Maine Independent Green Party.
> >>
> >> "Even this one sided, basically one candidate campaign, could never
> >> have led to a Cobb victory at the convention without the help of a
> >> second undemocratic factor. The Green Party does not use a
> >> one-person one-vote system but instead has an electoral-college
> >> system that punishes states like California for its success in
> >> recruiting tens of thousands of Greens, while rewarding states that
> >> have only a small membership."
> >>
> >>Actually, California a state with a little over 12% of the country's
> >>population, and which accounted for a little over 14% of Ralph Nader's
> >>votes in 2000 had 17% of the votes in Milwaukee. The "electoral college"
> >>system that Miller and Hill refer to is unclear.
> >>
> >>Again, there was a general expectation that delegates would appear at a
> >>national convention to decide on the national nominee. There are
> >>compelling arguments both ways for whether delegates should or should
> >>not be considered "free agents," but in Milwaukee, the reality was that
> >>not until the week of the convention was it even clear what the question
> >>confronting the party was. For example, many people still held out hope
> >>that Nader would change his mind and accept the nomination. Miller and
> >>Hill offer no explanation for how a "one-person one-vote" system could
> >>have been implemented at the absolute last minute nor do they suggest
> >>how the system that was used was designed to favor any option over
> >>another (an implicit argument because of the use of the word "rigged" in
> >>the title.)
> >>
> >> "But even taking into account this undemocratic ratio of
> >> representation that worked mightily for Cobb, he was still unable to
> >> win outright. He just didn't have enough delegates. To win the
> >> nomination, his supporters were allowed to alter the decisions of
> >> the small state meetings and primaries.
> >>
> >> This last non-democratic step was achieved because Green Party rules
> >> do not allow a candidate chosen by its rank and file to appoint
> >> their delegates like all other parties have in American history."
> >>
> >>It is of course unusual to point to how "all other parties" have done
> >>something in the past as a cue for how the Green Party to function. But
> >>with the point at hand, the simple reality is that what Miller and Hill
> >>are arguing for is allowable deceit.
> >>
> >>California is the best example of this. As has previously been stated,
> >>Peter Camejo made it clear that his delegates would be free to vote as
> >>they saw fit. Yet Miller and Hill argue here that Camejo should have
> >>been able to direct his delegates what to do - even if that direction
> >>would violate the intent of the instructions the delegates received from
> >>their constituents in their home states. Although they claim this is
> >>"undemocratic", they offer no substantiation for this whatsoever.
> >>
> >> "The only requirement for becoming a delegate is simply having the
> >> ability to attend the convention."
> >>
> >>This is technically false on the national party's end, as 1:1 proxy
> >>votes were allowed in Milwaukee. Several delegates' votes were cast by
> >>proxies in their stead. Of course, someone still had to have the ability
> >>to attend the convention - but many people "served" as delegates who did
> >>not attend the convention. It is also technically false on the end of
> >>numerous state parties. The Green Party of the United States did not
> >>issue exhaustive rules for who could or could not be a delegate, but
> >>individual state parties were free to do so as best served their needs.
> >>While some state parties had a difficult time sending delegates, other
> >>state parties had a glut of interest and held elections.
> >>
> >>Additionally, some state parties made a conscious effort to subsidize
> >>the trip for their delegates, and the GPUS Diversity Committee also
> >>assisted in subsidizing some delegates. While it is true more work could
> >>and should have been done in this regard, the implication that it was
> >>only the wealthy or the "party elite" who attended the national
> >>convention is simply wrong.
> >>
> >> "In this manner Cobb was able to take delegate votes from other
> >> candidates. This was achieved simply by having his supporters show
> >> up and cast their votes for him after the first round of voting.
> >> examples where this practice was highly evident include Maine,
> >> Missouri, California, and Texas."
> >>
> >>But it was very clear that for many Greens, their first preference might
> >>have been for a Camejo nomination or a Nader nomination, but given the
> >>choice, they preferred a Cobb nomination to no nomination at all, even
> >>if followed by a Nader endorsement. (It should be noted that not until
> >>the day before the nominating convention did the Nader campaign say they
> >>would accept all Green Party ballot lines, and even if they had wanted
> >>to, in some states only a nominee and not an endorsee could claim a
> >>ballot line. This was an issue of significant concern to a number of
> >>delegates which framed their decision making.) Since neither Camejo nor
> >>Nader were willing to accept the nomination, it was left for delegates
> >>to determine, from the list of available options, which way to go. That
> >>Cobb received votes from delegates who were bound to vote for other
> >>candidates in the first round is not stealing any more than had "No
> >>Nominee" received votes from delegates who were bound to vote for a
> >>person in the first round.
> >>
> >> "In California Cobb supporters were able to turn his 12% support in
> >> the primaries into a delegate vote of 26% by packing the delegation.
> >> Specifically 22 votes shifted to Cobb during the second round of
> >> voting. These votes are equal to the margin by which Cobb won the
> >> election."
> >>
> >>Cobb won in the second round with 53% of the vote, with 100 more votes
> >>than the next closest option. Miller and Hill do not speculate as to
> >>whether those who voted for Mesplay or Beemon in the second round would
> >>have voted for Cobb in the third or fourth rounds, but it is at least
> >>plausible that many would have done so. [Editor's note: Mesplay and
> >>Beemon both said, before and after the nomination, that they supported
> >>having a candidate from within the party. Had the voting gone to a third
> >>round, Cobb certainly would have won with a higher percentage than he
> >>
> >>
> >did.]
> >
> >
> >> "Behind the Cobb phenomena is a very real political difference in
> >> the Green Party. As many articles have pointed out, the party is
> >> divided between those who want to oppose the two parties of money
> >> and those who support voting for the lesser of two evils to help
> >> prevent a Republican victory. Cobb represents a political
> >> capitulation away from our independence from the two corporate
> >> controlled parties."
> >>
> >>This is simply a false statement being advanced to discredit Cobb. Many
> >>delegates who voted for Cobb felt that endorsing Nader was the option
> >>that represented a political capitulation, because it would have been
> >>the option that left the Green Party with no nominee, and would have
> >>been a tacit admission that the Green Party was merely a junior partner
> >>to Ralph Nader. That there are serious differences of opinion over what
> >>strategy to follow is impossible to deny. But Miller and Hill implicitly
> >>assign a rationale to the Cobb campaign that is not borne out by fact,
> >>merely heresay. But this is in line with the bulk of their piece, which
> >>advances arguments and presents as fact other matters which they offer
> >>no substantiation for. Never is it clearly stated how the convention was
> >>"rigged" as their title suggests. In fact, many people felt the floor
> >>rules for the convention gave an advantage to Nader by making "No
> >>Nominee" an effective default position.
> >>
> >>There were clearly many problems with the entire Green Party
> >>presidential nomination process, including the incredibly late date of
> >>passage of convention floor rules, the poor turnout for several state
> >>conventions, and the widespread confusion over the process created by
> >>the lack of clarity over Ralph Nader's intentions. These issues will
> >>have to be addressed at some length by the Green Party - at all levels-
> >>to create a much stronger process for 2008 and beyond. In the short
> >>term, however, it unfortunately appears that many of the spurious
> >>arguments advanced by Carol Miller and Forrest Hill are intended as a
> >>means of discrediting both the Cobb campaign and the Green Party itself.
> >>
> >>Shortly after the Miller/Hill piece was issued, it was reported that the
> >>Nader campaign failed to submit the requisite number of signatures to
> >>qualify for the California ballot line as an independent. In articles in
> >>several California newspapers it was reported that Nader was considering
> >>filing suit against California, and also that some Greens in California
> >>would attempt to turn the Green Party ballot line there over to
> >>Nader/Camejo instead of Cobb/LaMarche a clear violation of the state
> >>party's affiliation agreement with the Green Party of the United States.
> >>This should perhaps not come as a surprise. At the Maryland Green Party
> >>state convention prior to the Milwaukee convention, Carol Miller told
> >>Maryland Greens that if the national convention chose to nominate David
> >>Cobb, Maryland should consider disaffiliating from the national party.
> >>Actions such as this contributed to turning people off from the Nader
> >>campaign and reaffirmed for many others the sentiment that the Green
> >>Party needed its own nominee, whether that nominee was Ralph Nader or
not.
> >>
> >>It does no good at this point to argue the question of whether Ralph
> >>Nader abandoned the Green Party by refusing to seek its nomination, or
> >>whether the Green Party abandoned Ralph Nader by nominating David Cobb.
> >>There are two campaigns for progressives to work on to make a
> >>difference, and those campaigns each need people engaged in positive
> >>action, not people engaged in fighting each other when the real enemies
> >>of peace, justice, and freedom in the corporate duopoly are well-known
> >>and must continue to be fought.
> >>
> >>Phil Huckelberry
> >>Illinois Green Party
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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
>