[Pnp-wg] Wither Democracy?

[Elizabeth Arnone]

Mr. Fitz controlling 1859 proxy votes?  How is that possible?  How could any
state have that many proxies?  That needs some fixin!

Liz


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Owen Broadhurst" <owen.broadhurst@gmail.com>
To: <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Wither Democracy?


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.

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).

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.

Betty made these observations after casting her vote on the CC in
support of the limited proxy voting rule:

"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"

"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"

====

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.

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.

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.

Owen R. Broadhurst
GRP (MA)


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 reflects
> the history of this organization.  Proxies have been severely abused many
> 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 far
> being a federation of state parties has proven to be much more succesful
> than any other model of organizing Greens have tried, and more successful
> 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 the
> state parties and their development were hounded out of the GPUSA.  I
> personally was censured, received an official letter of censure, in 1992,
> 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
intellectual
> heirs of the GPUSA, and the road Steve Greenfield wants us to follow leads
> 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 have
> 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 proxies
> 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 Green
> 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 shape
> these days.  I see growth of state parties and local groups, good
> candidates, and other good signs, including financial.  So I believe that
> the path we have been travelling is a good one, one that leads to
continued
> growth, and that really straying from it will not be very helpful. Those
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
things
> about the development of the party does not fit in with the doom and gloom
> they need to project in order to justify their attacks.
>
> Such is life.
>
> greg gerritt
_______________________________________________
Pnp-wg mailing list
Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg