[Pnp-wg] OGOV and similar stuff
Steve Greenfield
bicyclesax@earthlink.net
Sun, 17 Apr 2005 21:55:59 -0400
Jeff's post sounds like goading. I, too, don't think it's a productive line
of inquiry for this committee to figure out which states didn't do much (or
even nothing) to survey their membership. That's 2004's problem, and we're
not a kangaroo court. We're hear to solve potential 2008 problems before
they arise.
In 2004 GPUS provided no guidance on methodology or technical or financial
support for states to conduct their outreach. There was a description in the
credentialing rules that provided for a timetable, but no procedure was put
in place to determine which states & delegates had fulfilled their
commitment in this area prior to seating and which had not. Any challenges
were left to individual challengers, not to any enforcement procedure within
GPUS itself, and how would anyone know what some other state delegation may
or may not have done?
It would be nice if one of the items that gets reported out of this
committee is our belief that some part of the process has to include
designing a package of outreach methodologies that could assist states with
varying situations on the ground with guidance and support, along with a
reporting mechanism so that whatever binding is done can be verified.
This isn't one of those contests between states, like "my state did a good
job and yours didn't." The only states we know for sure about are the 4
where primaries were held, and even that led to problems at the convention
itself. Local anecdote from a non-primary state: I know one delegate from
New York State who, when asked just before departing for Milwaukee what his
sense was of who he'd be supporting based on what he learned from his
electorate, replied "well, I haven't made up my mind. I can't support Nader,
but I don't really like Cobb either, and I don't know much about the other
candidates but somehow I sort of feel like I should be supporting a woman
this year." What this delegate was saying was that he did absolutely nothing
to merit admission to the convention. This was one case I was personally
aware of. All other New York delegates I know went to unbelievable lengths
to solicit constituent opinion and conformed to it when they voted. As I
said in the previous paragraph, there were no standards, no guidance, and no
support.
I don't think this committee needs to actually formulate these
methodologies. That can be delegated to a work group. But I do think we
should recommend that such a work group be formed as part of the process
next time.
Steve Greenfield
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <hecker@ecoisp.com>
To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>; <peterson@lakeland.ws>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] OGOV and similar stuff
> Sorry for the delay. Out of town.
>
> I don't think it would be particularly productive to "name names" of
states that I feel could have done a better job. I could give some details
of what delegations told me in MKE, if you'd like.
>
> To me, the important thing is that we agree that we could ALL do a better
job of polling our members, and that we agree that there should be, at the
least, some sort of proportional representation of the grassroots tallies
during the convention. Whether it is direct democratic voting, or using
delegations, Florida's major aim is to ensure the will of the greens at the
local level are represented at the GPUS. A secondary goal (without formally
asking FL) would be to establish a true one Green one vote, when and where
it is feasible.
>
> Gary
> FL
>
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Jeff Peterson <peterson@lakeland.ws>
> Reply-To: peterson@lakeland.ws
> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:11:28 -0500
>
> >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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>