[Pnp-wg] Jump starting the process.

[Greg Gerritt]

> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:18:53 -0500
> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Subject: [Pnp-wg] Jump starting the process.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg