[Pnp-wg] Introductory Comments

[Phil Huckelberry]

I wanted to offer a few remarks about the working group and where we could
be going.  I'll keep them relatively brief.

First, I should note that I was and still am a member of the Presidential
Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) and am also a member of the Bylaws,
Rules, Policies & Procedures Committee (BRPP).  I was one of the first
people to start formally tackling the issue of the Floor Rules for the
national convention.

I believe that in evaluating the entirety of the Presidential Nominating
Process, we have to break it down into various components:

* The actual nominating rules (floor rules) used at the convention.
* The delegate apportionments for the convention.
* Other matters related to the conduct of the national convention,
including but not limited to matters involving site selection, time
alotted for things, etc.
* The national party's handling of the "primary" season.
* The different ways that state parties conducted votes.
* The work of the Presidential Exploratory Committee (PEC).
* Other national party matters that preceded the "primary" season.
* The roles of various candidates and outside groups.

Many of the complaints, especially in the aftermath of the Milwaukee
convention, related to either the floor rules or the delegate
apportionments.  But to focus on these is to lose sight of the big
picture.  The floor rules must be understood in the context in which they
were drafted - after some state "primaries" had already begun, with little
to no comprehension of how state parties were handling things like binding
delegates, with rampant confusion about the intentions of the Nader
campaign.  Charges that the floor rules were somehow "fixed" to block
Nader are categorically false.  But I think we must agree that a number of
confusing matters slammed together that soured the relationship between
the party and the Nader camp - and I think we have to start at the
beginning.

Specifically, I feel that the national party's overall handling of the
presidential preference process (or "primary season") was horrendous. 
State parties were horribly confused regarding basic matters like who the
candidates were, how delegate votes should be bound - they were routinely
told to do it however they saw fit, and then a lot of them got grief for
it after the fact.  The lack of national-level coordination regarding
primaries and the confusion over who the candidates were contributed to
woefully low turnouts at state conventions.  Many state parties were
unprepared to deal with a lot of issues and very few attempted things like
mail-in ballots.  It is my opinion that the bulk of the problems with our
process in 2004 can be traced to things that happened before January 1,
2004, including a confusing "exploratory" process, the refusal/inability
of the national party to clearly designate up front that a nominee would
be selected (which created the NOTA mess), the refusal of the national
party to assist state parties with putting together rules, the ridiculous
wait until after the first of the year to tackle floor rules questions,
and much more.  The national party dropped the ball in 2002 and 2003, and
this led to the mess we had to deal with in 2004.  Rather than focus
narrowly on the particulars of the mess of 2004, we need to start with
what went wrong in 2002 and 2003.

As I said, my comments here are kept relatively brief.  I look forward to
seeing more initial feedback from all of you.

Phil Huckelberry
Co-Chair, Illinois Green Party
Delegate, GPUS