[Pnp-wg] represntation-Cnan we break it down?

[Gary R. Hecker]

Jeff has a very simple (on the surface) soloution. One fly in the ointment,
however, actually appears in states that can register Green. Example: In my
local, if you are registered with another party, you don't have voting
rights. Other locals are populated almost entirely with registered Dems.
Boosts their membership at our expense.

Would it advance the thread of conversation by concenbtrating on one small
part of the problem. Can we hammer out an idea on what might constitute a
Green, and then use that definition to start examining how delegations MIGHT
look?

Gary
Florida


> I agree with Greg's suggestion that we need to deal with this question
> of the apportionment of delegates first, and am glad that Forrest has
> risen to the challenge of fleshing out an alternative plan (below).
> 
> It seems we have only a limited number of criteria from which to choose,
> though some could be used in combination:
> 
> 1) state population -- the so-called "electoral college" method
> 2) Green Party membership within each state -- "membership" subject to
> definition
> 3) Green electoral success within each state -- as a percent of total
> votes cast in a given race or averaged over time
> 4) number of registered Green voters -- not available in all states, so
> probably not useful
> 
> When Forrest started talking about "one person, one vote" and the
> importance of fairly determining the size of a state's membership, I
> thought he was talking about #2 above -- my personal choice. But when I
> read further, it became clear that he was really talking about some
> combination of 3 & 4.
> 
> If California wants to use their number of registered Green Party voters
> (as opposed to bona fide party members) for some internal purposes,
> that's fine. But since Wisconsin and numerous other states do not keep
> statistics on voter registration by party, can't we all agree that this
> is a meaningless statistic for purposes of determining delegate counts?
> Any "neutral commission" would surely come to that same conclusion.
> 
> Which leaves us with his "indirect" method, which, due to tabulation
> errors in transmission, was a bit hard to make out. Forrest would
> apparently have us compare relative percentages gained by Green
> candidates across the states (something like this was a part of the
> equation in 2004), and in the process bestow Green Party "membership" on
> all the voters who chose those candidates. Even Forrest acknowledges
> that we really have no way of knowing how many of these "Green" voters
> might, in fact, be members of other political parties.
> 
> I'm all for "one person, one vote," but will not let that ideal be
> twisted in its interpretation to mean that anyone who ever voted Green
> should be counted as a Green Party member.
> 
> My suggestion is that delegates for 2008 be apportioned based solely on
> the number of each state's active, bona fide, members-in-good-standing.
> I know that's a tough pill for most of us, because our membership roles
> aren't even close to where they should be. I'm embarassed to admit it,
> but as of today, the Wisconsin Green Party has only 289 dues-paying
> (including those whose dues were waived) members statewide. Others of
> you could probably share equally dismal statistics. But honestly, I
> can't think of a more fair way to do it. Those states that make party
> building a priority will be rewarded with more delegates, as well they
> should under a proper application of "one person, one vote."
> 
> I'd like to hear from others in this group, perhaps off-list, who might
> like to join me in putting together a proposal along these lines.
> 
> Jeff Peterson
> Wisconsin
> 
>