[Pnp-wg] The ratios based on voting strength

[Elizabeth Arnone]

Steve, it was not my intention to skew your results.  I think your analysis
was very well done and shows a very true picture of voter strength.

In all that we do, 2004 will be in the back of my mind, and I think it
reasonable to reflect on that as we develop our own process.  I'm sure when
all is said and done, we will be explaining what we are doing differently
than 2004 and why.
My own curiosity got the better of me because the question immediately came
up for me.

Liz


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
To: <Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] The ratios based on voting strength


> I did not present the side by side comparison in my report because as I am
> opposed to outcome comparisons being used in consideration of the fairness
> of any particular model, I was trying to keep my proposal as a rendition
of
> pure, knowable ratios into proposed delegate counts. But now that the
> question is here, there needs to be a mathematical correction for the
> comparison to work properly.
>
> According to the GPUS website of 2004 convention data, there were 836
> delegates allotted in the 2004 system, which is a 51% larger convention
than
> my 554. In other words, my "convention 2" is close to exactly 2/3 the size
> of the 2004 convention. I think what we need to compare is not the
delegate
> counts but the delegate percentage, or the delegate counts as they would
> appear if the two conventions were the exact same size. That's the way to
> see who rises and falls and by how much. I'm shooting the list back with
> each 2004 delegation size cut by 1/3rd so as to make the comparison easier
> to spot.
> .
> Scroll down below Liz's note. I'm erasing the notes that preceded the
> numbers to avoid using up too much list space. And since we're now
comparing
> 2004 to my Convention 2 model, I'm going to temporarily eliminate
Convention
> 1. We can get back to debating convention size later.
>
> Steve
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Elizabeth Arnone" <elizarnone@comcast.net>
> To: <Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] The ratios based on voting strength
>
>
> > Thanks Steve.  You put a lot of work into this.  Just for comparison
sake,
> I
> > added the number of delegates for each state at the Milwaukee
convention.
> > Wanted to see how voting strength made a difference then and now.
> >
> > Those numbers are in ( ) below.  Interesting.
> >
> > Liz
>
> Again, new numbers in parentheses have been reduced to 2/3 the actual 2004
> delegation size for purposes of comparison with new numbers that were
> generated based on a presumed convention size that is 2/3 the size of the
> 2004 convention.
>
> Steve G.
>
> > ALABAMA -
> 2004 -- (6)  2008 -- 4
>
> > ALASKA  -
> 2004 -- (6)  2008 -- 5
>
> > ARIZONA -
> 2004 -- (4.67)  2008 -- 5
>
> > ARKANSAS  -
> 2004 -- (6)  2008 -- 3
>
> > CALIFORNIA -
> 2004 -- (88)  2008 -- 92
>
> > COLORADO - (14.67) 15
>
>  CONNECTICUT - (10) 13
> >
> > DELAWARE - (4.67) 3
> >
> > DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - (7.33)  4
>
> > FLORIDA - (17.33) 20
> >
> > GEORGIA - (8) 3
>
> > HAWAII - (6) 3
> >
> > IDAHO - (4.67) 2
> >
> > ILLINOIS - (14.67) 16
> >
> > INDIANA - (6.67) 3
> >
> > IOWA - (6) 5
> >
> > KANSAS - (6) 7
> >
> > KENTUCKY - (3.33) 5
> >
> > LOUISIANA - (6)  4
> >
> > MAINE - (12.67) 10
> >
> > MARYLAND - (8) 10
> >
> > MASS. - (24) 35
> >
> > MICHIGAN - (18.67) 16
> >
> > MINNESOTA - (18.67) 22
> >
> > MISSISSIPPI - (2.67) 2
> >
> > MISSOURI - (7.33) 6
> >
> > MONTANA - (4.67) 5
> >
> > NEBRASKA - (6) 5
> >
> > NEVADA - (4.67) 3
> >
> > NEW HAMPSHIRE - (2.67) 4
> >
> > NEW JERSEY - (11.33) 17
> >
> > NEW MEXICO - (6.67) 8
> >
> > NEW YORK - (28) 50
> >
> > NORTH CAROLINA - (8.67) 1
> >
> > NORTH DAKOTA - (2) 2
> >
> > OHIO - (15.33) 17
> >
> > OKLAHOMA - (2.67) 1
> >
> > OREGON - (12.67) 12
> >
> > PENNSYLVANIA - (24.67) 18
> >
> > RHODE ISLAND - (6.67) 4
> >
> > SOUTH CAROLINA - (6) 4
> >
> > SOUTH DAKOTA - (1.33) 1
> >
> > TENNESSEE - (6.67) 6
> >
> > TEXAS - (25.33) 21
> >
> > UTAH - (6) 7
> >
> > VERMONT - (5.33) 4
> >
> > VIRGINIA - (10) 9
> >
> > WASHINGTON - (14.67) 19
> >
> > WEST VIRGINIA - (2) 2
> >
> > WISCONSIN - (22) 20
> >
> > WYOMING - (2) 1
>
> Total delegates Convention 554
> >
> > Steve Greenfield, New Paltz, NY
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>