[Pnp-wg] The ratios based on voting strength

[Elizabeth Arnone]

I thought we had agreed to stay away from population based numbers?
Liz


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
To: <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] The ratios based on voting strength


> Switching subject line to reflect content. -- SG
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
> To: <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Re: Sense of the meeting on representative vs.direct
> method
>
>
> >
> > Steve's numbers were rather interesting.  What I will ask is that
someone
> > present those numbers with a population factor added in.  Maybe a
> population
> > factor equalling several different percentages for our edification such
as
> > factor in population as one half of the final number, 1/3 and 1/4 just
to
> > see what it does.  greg
>
> Someone? 3 different sets of indices? That's a lot of work. If this is
your
> idea, why not just do it?
>
> Of course, I will oppose the inclusion of general population numbers on
> general principle. It skews the voting strength results further from
> one-person, one-vote since it will create delegate counts on a basis that
> has nothing to do with the Green Party in any state or nationally. In this
> manner it inherently disfranchises actual grassroots Greens. When the
> "Greens To Be" I keep seeing references to actually either a) join the
Green
> Party or b) at least VOTE for Green Party presidential and/or statewide
> candidates, then I'll be ready to start seeing them represented in our
> presidential candidate selection process.
>
> Membership or registration, whatever its challenges as a matter of
> definition and calculation in differing circumstances, at least endeavors
to
> measure something Green, namely, how many people are in the Green Party or
> who have in some manner declared themselves to be specifically affiliated
> with the Green Party as an electoral party, which is how it is defined for
> purposes of Presidential elections. This is not a small matter. These are
> the lists of people from which we are going to identify our petitioners
and
> campaign volunteers. Without them, there is no presidential race.
>
> The Green Voting Strength model measures something much easier to both
> define and measure, namely, the success of the state in delivering the
> fingers of voters to the Green Column switches in the ballot booth in
> comparable races. This, too, is key in determining participation levels in
> the selection process, because the votes are what gets counted, and it's
the
> votes that are going to show if we are moving towards or away from the
magic
> 5% that will allow the Green Party to move to the next level.
>
> General population of states, however, measures nothing that is relevant
to
> the Green Party, Green activity, or votes for Greens in the ballot booth.
I
> had hoped that by this point we would have moved beyond this. I still hope
> we will.
>
> In order to advance this discussion to the next level, I will next offer
> another model that factors the Voting Strength model with the original
> Membership Model I posted several weeks ago.
>
> Steve Greenfield
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>