[Pnp-wg] Jump starting the process.

[Steve Greenfield]

I don't think we need a timeline or supporting background reports. We also
don't need to examine what went right and what went wrong, because the
system used to apportion delegates between the states was so devoid of both
democratic principles and sufficient rationale to be setting them aside as
to merit a complete (as we used to say in the playground) do-over. This is
bathwater that has no baby in it, and we should just dump it and start over.

Before the howling starts from quarters that are heavily invested in the old
system (especially the part about how "most people" supported it, because
"most people" as defined by Green Party standards never even knew any of
this was happening), here are some citations that will illustrate how
non-hyperbolic my thesis is:

http://www.gp.org/convention/delegate_1.html This is the detailed chart
explaining the delegate allocations to each state. Glaring Flaw #1 is the
assignment of seats based on the Electoral College. The Electoral College is
a total-population based system and has no bearing to whether or not a
particular state has any Greens residing in it. Using a total-population
based scheme gives delegates from states with high populations and small
Green Parties (like Ohio) enormous individual "kingmaking" power that has no
place in a grassroots-democracy-identified party. Compounding this is
Glaring Flaw #2 in which CC seats are used to compute additional delegate
counts. The CC is also total-population based, and even as such is
completely skewed by magnifying the voting strength of low-population states
4-fold vs. medium-population states because of the inexplicable 2-seat
minimum. This disparity gets multiplied at the convention by the convention
delegate count assignment system factoring all CC seats by a rate of 1.75.

http://www.gp.org/convention/delegate_tally.html is the GPUS report on all
states' delegate counts, as well as some indication of how the delegates
were distributed before the start of the convention.

Indiana has 10 delegates, even though they self-report only 24 members of
the party in their entire state.
(http://www.indianagreenparty.org/minutes/IGPCongress2004MeetingNotes.html -
- see report, first line after attendance list). They have no statewide
electoral successes to justify any additional weight.

Ohio has 23 delegates even though they self-report (and publish the names
of) 1300 members. (http://www.ohiogreens.org/membership/alpha.html)  How
this figure is arrived at is highly questionable due to Ohio bylaws that
include signers of candidates' nominating petitions as members even if the
signer makes no indication of voluntarily joining the Green Party, including
candidates that the Ohio GP did not even endorse to run
(http://www.ohiogreens.org/bylaws.html -- section II, Membership,
subsections 3 & 4). Ohio, too, has no statewide electoral history to justify
additional weight.

Michigan is given 32 delegates with the note "Michigan decided to send all
delegates uncommitted." Under GPUS bylaws some democratic process has to be
used by the states to make this determination. Did GPUS attempt to certify
this? Michigan published results of a "straw poll" in which only 99 people
were surveyed, but then "decided" to send 32 uncommitted delegates.

I can prepare a report on all 50 states if anyone thinks that is necessary,
but I hope everyone will be able so see by this abbreviated report that
there is nothing (yes, nothing) in the old system worth saving. We have to
start over from scratch.

Steve Greenfield
New York