[Pnp-wg] Proxy question

[Greg Gerritt]

The vote was 79 to 1, and all of the NY delgates that voted, voted in favor
of going to Tulsa. 

As for democracy, every state was invited to host the meeting.  If you did
not want to travel, why didn't New Paltz offer to host?

I have yet to see an analysis of local races that refutes my analysis.  No
one has shown us that Greens consistently get a higher percentage in
partisan races in some states and consistently lower percentages in others.
The numbers were a random sample that showed no patterns.  Maybe detailed
analysis would show something, but to the naked eye no patterns emerged,
which was my only point.  You criticized it, but did not disprove my
hypothesis from preliminary data.

One more topic.  Have you ever looked at the demographic information for
Providence?  Are you really trying to tell us that New Paltz is poorer
Providence? That more than 40% of the kids in New Paltz live in poverty?

greg  

> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:19:18 -0400
> To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Proxy question
> 
> From: "Greg Gerritt"
> 
>> I think I remember the NY delegation voting to have the meeting in Tulsa.
> 
> Actually, three out of seven, less than a majority, but not a bad guess
> considering you were the floor manager and about as accurate as most of your
> reports.*
> 
> http://green.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propresult?pid=135
> 
> Continuing with your very private interpretation of democracy, we were only
> offered one choice.
> 
> Steve G.
> 
> *My favorite one was when you declared you had examined a representative
> sample of all Green candidacies and discovered that all Greens run at about
> the same percentage all the time regardless of location as "proof" of your
> belief that general population accurately represents Green strength.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
> To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Proxy question
> 
> 
>> I think I remember the NY delegation voting to have the meeting in Tulsa.
>> 
>>> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
>>> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:43:48 -0400
>>> To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Proxy question
>>> 
>>> ---- 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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