[Pnp-wg] represntation

[Greg Gerritt]

Mark, the way to move this forward would be to formalize it as a proposal
and crate a chart tlisting delegation sizes for us to peruse.  Give us the
concrete and the abstract.

greg 

> From: "Mark Swaney" <mswaney@engr.uark.edu>
> Reply-To: <mswaney@engr.uark.edu>
> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:27:44 -0600
> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Subject: RE: [Pnp-wg] represntation
> 
> 
> 
> Greens,
> 
> As a suggestion, and something to consider, would it not be reasonable to
> apportion to each state Green Party a number of delegates proportional to
> the *demonstrated Green voting strength* in each state?
> 
> In addition, what about a minimum of one or two delegates for every
> accredited state party - so that in using a proportional rule we do not
> exclude from participation any state party.  This just seems reasonable to
> me.
> 
> I believe that all the states have accurate numbers of the Green voting
> strength in any recent election.  We could consider using those numbers and
> give the state parties the choice of which Green candidate they want to use
> for calibration, (in a state-wide race) for example using the vote for Cobb
> in the last election, or alternatively, using the vote for a governor's
> candidate, which ever the state party believes demonstrates the most votes
> for a Green candidate.
> 
> This proposal it seems to me has some advantages,
> 
> 1.  The proposal envisions a national system that will not involve violating
> state "autonomy" and uses a standard apples-to-apples rule for every state
> that will allow for proportional representation.  With this system, no
> complaints of king-making or mal-apportioned delegates can fairly be made.
> 
> 2.  The proposed rule is based on the measure that *counts* - Green voting
> strength.  
> 
> Trying to go by the "size of the party" - such as the criticism that Indiana
> has only 24 members but got 10 delegates is not reasonable. The number of
> steady committed hard workers (the "24") is not at all a reasonable measure
> of the true result we are all aiming for - namely votes for Green
> candidates.  
> 
> Democrats and Republicans number in the millions, yet the number of Dem or
> Rep voters that attend meetings, devote their lives to politics, etc. is
> very much smaller, and this unavoidable fact will, and does, also apply to
> the GPUS.
> 
> As I understand it, or aim is to elect candidates to office, not merely to
> inflate our "membership".  If we make the standard for representation based
> on the outcome we seek, we will encourage the state parties to do that which
> they should do - run candidates and increase the voting strength of the GP
> in their states.
> 
> It is not much use to have state parties that focus on membership numbers
> while doing a poor job of running or supporting candidates for office.
> 
> This is only an idea for consideration, just something to think about.
> 
> Mark Swaney
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg