[Pnp-wg] Wither Democracy?

[Owen Broadhurst]

Further observations from Prof. Zisk:

http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2004-May/004842.html

"The proposal before the USGP (after a lot of legal jargon) provides that
state delegations to the national convention in Milwaukee can basically
double their votes on behalf of those not able to attend in person (up to
the total number of delegates alloted to them)--ie if there are 15
delegates in attendance they may cast 30 votes (l5 on behalf of their
absent comrades). It is sponsored by about 5 state parties; it has
been the subject of some discussion by Owen B. and an exchange beweeen
me and him. The voting deadline is May 30.

I plan to vote for this proposal unless I hear from a sizeable number of
people to the contrary. Proxy voting has been a hot issue in the past
history of USGP--espec for its predecessor organizations in the
1988-2001 period--because a number of people attended decision making
meetings in the past with a very large number of proxy votes in hand
that essentially decided the outcome of those decisions in a lopsided
way. (For example at the vote on Green Unity in 2001--where a small
number of people with a large number of proxies blocked the GPUSA from
joining the ASGP move for unity.)

Thus the ASGP (predessor to USGP) has always opposed proxies--for any
reason--and I have been with that decision until now. I still have
mixed feelings about proxies. But I believe it is an acceptable
compromise to allow one proxy per attending delegate since the
logistics (affordability and timing) of Green Party convention are
clearly going to prevent large attendance--and a doubling via proxy
doesnt seem as undemocratic as past abuses where sometimes people
brought whole blocs of voting proxies. As for alternatives--like more
proxies available--it is unrealistic to expect this at all--in fact I
suspect even the doubling proposal may barely squeak through. So
please advise me. Unless I hear from a substantial # of people I will
cast my vote as yes on May 30.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

My post to GRP StateCom 25 May 2004:

"Rich is correct that this is not a perfect solution, but a side-stepping o=
f=20
such a solution. I, too, believe it would be preferable to find ways of=20
making access to national conventions affordable.

We learned of alternative housing too late for such to have been of=20
assistance in recruiting delegates prior to the reporting deadline.=20
Alternate, affordable, housing for delegates should be widely
publicised by  the party much earlier than it has been this year.

The CC passed the DivCom proposal on subsidising the transportion of=20
low-income delegates who can be described as also being of other=20
disenfranchised "communities." However, this proposal is merit based
and  therefore limited to but a few such; it does not address how
being low  income is within itself to be disenfranchised; and it is
not likely to have proper funding to meet its promise.

The national party should and must find ways of providing fee waivers to=20
people in economic hardship, and find ways to subsidize travel. It may
need  to work in conjunction with state parties in order to this,
simply due to the fact that the national party might not otherwise
have awareness of all  opportunities for discount packages for groups,
and resource pooling opportunities, in each state.

Both Rich and Betty suggested that electronic conference participation
for  delegates who cannot attend, or cannot afford attendance, is
worth
exploring. I agree. The technology certainly does exist, and it would be=20
good for the national party to start exploring its feasibility.

The "solution" of this proposal is an imperfect one, at best, and it does=
=20
not address how those extra votes might find exercise with actual
persons behind them once those votes are released by the candidates.
Without far better solutions actually having any likelihood of
implementation this year, however, this seems presently to be the one
and only way that states can actually have the numbers of votes
assigned to them at this convention.

Owen R. Broadhurst

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The GRP dealt with its proxy voting in the manner described:

http://green-rainbow.org/pipermail/statecom/2004-June/004885.html

Proxy Voting Decision:
(a CC proposal to allow delegations to case proxies- max one per
delegate- in order to fill their delegation was passed in early June;
the state committee of each party needs to have a written copy of the
rules in case they are challenged, I present our proxy voting decision
below)
=20
---Approximately 25 of the 36 delegate positions in the MA delegation
are physically filled with people who are expected to be present
tomorrow, thus we will be utilizing proxy votes to ensure that MA is
fully represented at the Nominating Convention during each round of
voting.
=20
---Proxies are under the control of the entire delegation and their
votes will be determined as follows:
=20
-Committed candidate delegations (9 Cobb, 9 Salzman, 3 Mesplay, 3
Glover, 2 Nader) will receive proxy votes to ensure that their
delegation is full AND these proxies will continue to vote for the
candidate during each round UNLESS the candidate directs them to vote
otherwise OR the delegates are released (by action of the candidate or
the candidate is eliminated under the floor rules)
-Released candidate delegates will go into the uncommitted/no
preference pool of delegates
=20
-Uncommitted/No Preference candidate delegates (10 delegates
initially, then 10 delegates + released delegates) will receive proxy
votes to ensure that their "delegation" is full.
-The votes of uncommitted/no preference proxies is determined by the
following manner:
1) the vote of the whole delegation (each PHYSICALLY present delegate
is counted)
2) the vote of each PHYSICALLY present uncommitted/no preference
delegate is noted
3) the proxy votes are allocated to reflect the outcome of #1 and #2,
wherein the difference between counts #1 and #2 will be split
4) in the case of a split falling exactly halfway, then the candidate
option performing less favorably overall will receive the vote (e.g.
11 proxies needed evenly split between candidate A and candidate B;
overall, candidate B has received less support by the entire
Convention body of delegates; thus 6 proxies for candidate B, 5
proxies for candidate A)
=20
Example:
It is round 3 or later, several candidates have been eliminated and
their delegates released; 25 delegates physically present, of them 8
are committed delegates and 17 are uncommitted/no preference
delegates.
25 uncommitted/no preference positions are available
11 committed (candidate) positions are available [9 Cobb and 2 Nader]
Votes:
1) 12 Cobb (48%), 8 Camejo (32%), 4 Abstain (16%), 1 Nader (4%)
2) 8 Camejo (47%), 5 Cobb (29%), 4 Abstain (24%)
3) 8 uncommitted/no prefence proxy votes need to be allocated
The average between #1 and #2 are the following:
Cobb (38.5%), Camejo (39.5%), Abstain (20%), Nader (2%); thus we use
these percentages to determine how the 8 uncommitted/no preference
proxies are allocated
Result for Uncommitted/No Preference Proxies: 3 Cobb, 3 Camejo, 2 Abstain
=20
*Note the final vote results (including ALL proxies) for the above
example would submitted to the Election Administrator by our Reporter
or Alternate Reporter as the following: [36 Votes Cast] 17 Cobb, 11
Camejo, 6 Abstain, 2 Nader
=20
=20
On another note, I think that we should pat ourselves on the back for
not only being the first Green state party to submit it's delegate
packet to the GPUS credentialling committe, but our delegation was
also the first one to submit the names of our elected Reporter and
Alternate Reporter!  We are definitely turning quite a few heads at
this Convention.
=20
Scott Pherson
GRP Candidate Development and Legal Committee Co-Chair
GRP State Committee Alternate Delegate (Middlesex County)


On 4/23/05, Owen Broadhurst <owen.broadhurst@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thing is- no one, absolutely no one, on this list has been advocated
> unlimited use of proxies. We're not discussing circumstances where
> someone, say Mr. Fitz, controls 1859 proxy votes.
>=20
> Massachusetts did employ proxy votes during the convention. We had
> most of our delegation in attendance- but expectations that we could
> as a party provide transport, housing, and even at home nursing care
> for delegates in Milwaukee could only be described as simply ludicrous
> from my perspective. We used our proxy votes in accordance with the
> 2004 floor rules, and I quite frankly found those floor rules a
> perfect regulatory mechanism for proxy voting (one of the few facets
> of the floor rules that did NOT irk me).
>=20
> No one is more familiar with abuse of proxy voting than our former CC
> delegate, Professor Betty Zisk. Professor Zisk was among our delegates
> to the national nominating convention in 2000 as well as 04.
>=20
> Betty made these observations after casting her vote on the CC in
> support of the limited proxy voting rule:
>=20
> "We voted on the premise that MA GRP would not have enough people at
> the convention in Milwaukee. If that is wrong and we have a full
> delegation of 36 that is wonderful. I somewhat doubt it. In the year
> 2000 when only 11 delegates were involved we had to beg and borrow and
> steal some. Sharon and her kids came through at the last moment to
> fill our delegation. Betts"
>=20
> "Owen, I am not sure you know the long and nasty history of proxy
> voting and its abuse in what was formerly the Green Committees of
> Correspondence in 1986-96 period before the ASGP (which became the
> GPUS) was formed. People took huge numbers of proxy votes to the
> meetings with them and controlled--like spiders--many many outcomes. I
> first ran into this in Oregon in 1988. It continued through the period
> when ASGP and GPUSA were talking about a merger seriously--and it was
> proxy voting that enabled Don Fitz of Missouri to block that effort to
> this day. I am adamantly opposed to proxy voting of any kind--in spite
> of that fact that I realize it means some would-be delegates cannot
> attend if they cant afford it. I dont think proxies are the answer; I
> think e mail votes might solve part of the problem
> in between face to face meetings--but the only other thing I can think
> of is stronger fundraising so that 99% of delegates can attend. I
> realize I am being too brief here--I just dont have time to write out
> all the gory
> details of how abusive proxy voting became. (It wasnt just Don Fitz.
> Howie Hawkins was also strong in controlling many votes. Ask Lorna by
> the way--if she has time she will describe those horrors.) I thus
> think that probably the idea of one proxy vote per delegation might be
> acceptable compromise. Betts"
>=20
> =3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> No one is suggesting that proxy voting is an ideal solution. It is
> not. I would be surprised if even any one of us on the list promoting
> the limited use of proxy voting does not personally find the thought
> of using proxies a poor stop-gap solution. However, we need to contend
> with certain economic realities of the day: the larger state parties
> have ample economic constraints resulting from both the size of their
> parties and the size of their states. Growth often does not in fact
> result in a party with ample free cash. It often results in
> indebtedness- and where much of the growth in, say, the GRP for
> instance has been among the homeless and people in poverty, our size
> cannot indicate affluence.
>=20
> We have no proxy voting in our State Committee- but we don't need it.
> We fund the child-care arrangements, we schedule our meetings near
> mass transit sites, and our members car-pool with those who don't have
> automobile access. We have eliminated the barriers.
>=20
> The national nominating convention has not, and does not. It likely
> shall not, ever. Given that, and given how so many Greens in what we
> might call our national leadership remain adamantly opposed to the
> notion, the limited proxy voting compromise of 2004 seems reasonable.
>=20
> Owen R. Broadhurst
> GRP (MA)
>=20
>=20
> On 4/23/05, Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > I have one vote, so how does that make me judge, jury, and executioner.=
   Am
> > I allowed my opinion, or because Mr Greenfield disagrees with me, am I =
to be
> > labeled an executioner?
> >
> > Part of the discussion that is taking place in this working group refle=
cts
> > the history of this organization.  Proxies have been severely abused ma=
ny
> > times in the history of the Green Party.  Green organizations based on =
proxy
> > voting have turned into monsters.  GPUSA is the prime example.
> >
> > My understanding of the responsibility of a state party in a federation=
 is
> > different from many other Greens.  To me the GPUS is not the individual
> > Greens, it is the state parties.  They are the only members of the GPUS=
.
> > That is what our founding documents say, that is our history.  And so f=
ar
> > being a federation of state parties has proven to be much more succesfu=
l
> > than any other model of organizing Greens have tried, and more successf=
ul
> > than any of the models the left has used in the US in the last 50 years=
.
> >
> > We were founded because those of us trying to base the Green Party on t=
he
> > state parties and their development were hounded out of the GPUSA.  I
> > personally was censured, received an official letter of censure, in 199=
2,
> > from the GPUSA for pointing out that the ecological niche of the Green =
Party
> > is as a federation of state parties, not as an organization based on
> > individual members.
> >
> > So yes, my understanding of the GPUS is very different from the intelle=
ctual
> > heirs of the GPUSA, and the road Steve Greenfield wants us to follow le=
ads
> > us right back to GPUSA, and the disaster that was. Sorry, but watching =
the
> > Green Party for 20 years, living through the attacks by leftists on the
> > Green Party for 20 years, has given me a little perspective on this and=
 I
> > think it appropriate to share what I have learned over the years.
> >
> > So if you want to castigate me for reminding state parties that they ha=
ve
> > responsiblities in a FEDERATION of State Parties, so be it. If it takes
> > being the one person on the working group who remembers how badly proxi=
es
> > have been abused in our history, because I lived though it, so be it.  =
But
> > do not expect me to idly sit by and watch people try to destroy the Gre=
en
> > Party by returning it to a failed past.
> >
> > I guess what also irks Mr Greenfield, is that I, based on communicating=
 with
> > Greens all over the country, believe the Green Party to be in good shap=
e
> > these days.  I see growth of state parties and local groups, good
> > candidates, and other good signs, including financial.  So I believe th=
at
> > the path we have been travelling is a good one, one that leads to conti=
nued
> > growth, and that really straying from it will not be very helpful. Thos=
e who
> > see 2004 and the present as a disaster see the need for radical change,=
 and
> > therefore I am an obstacle to be removed, because someone saying good t=
hings
> > about the development of the party does not fit in with the doom and gl=
oom
> > they need to project in order to justify their attacks.
> >
> > Such is life.
> >
> > greg gerritt
>