[Pnp-wg] Jump starting the process.

[Greg Gerritt]

I will contnue to support a population based system as there is no other
measure that can be applied fairly to all of the various states.
Furthermore Green candidates generally do about as well at the polls no
matter where in the country they run.

I think that clear analysis of what we did will be very useful.

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