[Pnp-wg] Proxy question

[Steve Greenfield]

---- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Proxy question


> With all due respect, the issue that we keep seeing is how do we give more
> votes to larger State Green Parties. If we are giving more power to larger
> State Green Parties, then we also are giving them more responsibilities.
> State parties should be fundraising to send their delegations to national
> meetings.  This is truly a state party function.

No, it's a GPUS function because GPUS decides where the meeting is going to
be held. If GPUS was basing this decision solely on the lowest average
travel cost per delegate, and then created a travel pool so the states
immediately surrounding the convention site and independently wealthy
delegates would share the attendance costs equally with the distant and/or
poor delegates, I could see the rest being left to the states. But since my
state doesn't have any say over where I have to go, they shouldn't be
responsible for how I pay to get there.

>  To use the obvious
> example, strictly as an example.  NY has 20 times the population of RI,
has
> about 20 times as many Greens as RI.  That means the sttae party budget
> ought to be 20 times the size of RI.  There should be 20 times as many
> volunteers for fundraising.

It also means we've run 17 times more candidates than you, many of whom have
to cover square mileage over 50 times the size of your state to campaign
before a population 20 times your size dispersed throughout that area, and
get signatures in at least half of our 31 congressional districts, so
serious travel is necesary rather than optional. We also have least 50 times
more locals than you, and mount 100 times more registration drives than you.
Does your state party have to do any mailings to 40,000 people? Thought not.
All of that takes money. Lots of money. So much for examples. Do me a favor
and mind your own ledgers.
>
> We are holding a yard sale on May 14.  That is our spring fundraiser.  We
> expect to raise $300.  Can NY do 20 yard sales?  Can New Paltz Greens do
> one?

Again, since little old New Paltz, with only 1% of your state population has
been involved in more Green races as your whole state from our inception in
1998, we have spending needs that you don't. Our local per capita income is
also much lower than RI's, and the percentage of our population below the
poverty line much higher. Maybe you can send us some of your extra money,
and we'll send you some of our extra organizing advice.
>
> I think a very serious issue is that many greens do not really understand
us
> as a federation of state parties.  The federation is small compared to the
> overall size of the state parties.  The state parties budgets are combined
> much larger than the federation's, as it should be.  As soveriegn state
> parties the state parties need to take their responsibilities as members
of
> the federation serioulsy, and that means making sure they are well
> represented at federation meetings.

We can only be as represented as GPUS permits, which right now is at most
half what it should be even if travel were not an issue. Put the meeting
somewhere where it costs our delegates at least $600 and 15 hours to get
back and forth, then eliminate proxy voting, and you have successfully
disenfranchised the New York Green Party completely. I know you wouldn't
lose any sleep over that personally, but if we're a federation of state
parties then we have to create a system that allows us to meet as a
federation.

> It is not the responsibility of the
> federation to make sure the state parrties are represnted, it is the
> reponsibility of the state parties.

Then I suggest we make holding the meeting in the cheapest place for the
most to travel to be GPUS policy, and have the people who end up with little
or no travel pool their resources to support the attendance of people who
have to travel great distances and cover larger travel costs.

>
> RI has subsidized the travel of its delegation every year.  Sometimes it
is
> through a yard sale, sometimes it is through some other event, sometimes
it
> is someone picking up the phone and making 15 phone calls.  But we have
> accepted that responsibility, and I admit it irks me that a state party
> asking mfor more represnetation does not take the responsbility that comes
> with that power seriously.
>
> On a related note, this is why I am also opposed to proxies.  You want
more
> votes, do more work.

What you are saying is if we want more votes, we should have more money
and/or fewer kids or elderly parents to care for, not do more work. What a
delightfully Green concept, just like we've come to expect from you. My
state went from zero members in 1998 to 40,000 members at present, have run
over 315 candidates from 1998 to present, won 9 elections (8 offices
currently held with one incumbent recently reelected), and gathered at least
a quarter of a million signatures on candidate petitions. We also won the
first court case of its kind in US history to protect our registration base
after the loss of ballot status, something most of us including Richar
Winger are wondering why the Rhode Island Greens aren't doing now that
caselaw exists to support it. A representative of the Rhode Island Greens is
hardly in a position to deliver this particular lecture.

Now I'd better stop typing before I use New York's most famous expression a
second time.

Steve Greenfield