[Pnp-wg] Jump starting the process.

[Kirit]

"It's OK for Greens to disagree"-- Peter Camejo in '04 speaking at
UDC about the upcoming convention.

I attended the convention as a delegate and disagree with some of the 
assumptions you've made which appear to be the basis for your formulas:

1) You have exclusively focused on delegation size and process rules
as the factors which contributed to the convention result; in truth 
there were many other factors including participation in the primary 
process, debates among candidates before and during the convention, 
lobbying by the campaigns among the delegates,etc. Ultimately, most 
delegates were free to vote their own choice in Round Two. In 2008, the 
candidates and issues will make for a completely different dynamic.

2) In summarily judging the electoral success of a state, how are you 
accounting for campaigns undertaken but not won? For example, in my own 
state we ran two House of Delegates races that garnered less than 5% of 
the vote but were nevertheless judged a success based on the goals of 
the local and exposure to the voting public of articulate and 
well-versed Green candidates. Winning office is not the only measure of 
success as noted by the CCC in their campaign schools.

3) The lack of democracy prose is unconvincing despite its frequent 
reiteration.


Peace,

Kirit


On 02/24/2005 10:09 PM, Steve Greenfield wrote:
> Phil, I don't even know who Gray is. I did not attack anyone, nor did I know
> that the "main architect" of the old system is on this committee. That
> should not even be a consideration in the work this committee is setting out
> to do. I didn't blast anyone's position, because nobody had taken a
> position. Nobody had defended the old system. My statement was made on its
> own. It is a feeling shared by many, and there was no reason for me to beat
> around the bush. We were asked to give our opening positions, and I gave
> mine in plain language. I also backed it up with plain facts, facts which I
> note nobody has contested.
> 
> No matter who thinks total state population is a fair system, or why, there
> is no way to justify using it twice in the same delegate computation. That's
> one of the "glaring flaws" of the 2004 system, and I wouldn't be doing my
> job on this committee if I didn't point that out. The multiplying of the CC
> seats by 1.75 also cannot be justified, because doing so multiplies again by
> a factor of .75 the already known inequities in CC apportionment that go far
> beyond simple population-based apportionment. It's not my fault that nobody
> pointed this out last year. I wasn't here last year, or I would have. I'm
> here now, and I'm pointing it out now. And my state elected me to this
> committee specifically to address these matters. It was the platform on
> which I ran for the slot.
> 
> Whether you like the sound of it or not, 10 delegates for a party with only
> 24 members and no state candidacy history is, in fact, undemocratic. You're
> not going to dodge that issue by calling me undiplomatic. There is a degree
> of variance in what can be called "democracy," but ultimately, you know it
> when you see it. And what we have right now ain't it. I'm not going to fall
> into the diplomacy trap. Nobody is going to frame my issues for me. That's
> how debates are lost.
> 
> I also disagree with your suggestion to frame the work of the committee.
> This committee is assigned to review the entire nominating process, not just
> the pleasant parts or the revisions we think will pass easy votes. This
> committee must come up with reapportionment recommendations. That is the
> elephant in the living room, and we are going to take a hard look at it.
> This is the main buck and it should not be passed. We need not try to unify
> around a single precise proposal, but we must make concrete recommendations.
> If we don't, you can be sure that there will be a dissenting report, so we
> may as well give it a go as a group.
> 
> In any situation where someone does a lot of work, if someone else points
> out the work is flawed, the person who did the work will invariably take it
> as a personal attack. I cannot change human nature, but I am not going to
> incorporate that as an excuse not to do my job.
> 
> Steve Greenfield
> New York
> 
> 
>