[Pnp-wg] represntation

[Steve Greenfield]

My proposal was made using numbers self-reported by the states, including
states that definitely count Democrats in their numbers. It doesn't
interfere with your sovereignty, and uses the numbers you provide. My
proposal is also flexible in that it allows any state to use consistent or
mean statewide election results or any criteria of their own choosing to
appeal for additional seats.

So, the idea of one-person, one vote is very well definable and it's the
states that define "person." Frankly, I think that GPUS will soon have to
come up with some minimum standard that we can make consistent in all
states, but that's a project for a bit down the road. Since my proposal
continues the policy of allowing states to define and estimate the numbers
of their own members according to their own bylaws, this particular
complaint should be neutralized.

Steve Greenfield
New York.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Owen Broadhurst" <owen.broadhurst@gmail.com>
To: <Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] represntation


I must confess that I find the suggestion of apportionment "based
solely on the number of each state's active, bona fide,
members-in-good-standing" to be disturbing. How shall any such a thing
be defined? The Green-Rainbow Party has already defined its
membership, and it is as follows from our bylaws:

4.1 Membership in the Green-Rainbow Party is open to all residents of
Massachusetts, regardless of age, who are not registered voters in
another party or political designation and who fulfill at least one of
the following criterion:
• Be a registered Green-Rainbow Party (J designation) voter in
Massachusetts;
• Be a registered Rainbow Coalition (F designation) or GPUSA (G
Designation) voter in Massachusetts through November 30, 2003;
• Pay dues to the Green-Rainbow Party. Fee waivers must be available
for individuals who are active participants in the Green-Rainbow Party
and are unable to pay due to economic constraints. Any membership
application may only require a member to provide a name, address,
signature, date signature was signed and whether the member applied
for a fee waiver.

======

These members are bona-fide members in good standing, as far as we are
concerned. If we're to limit those who qualify for representation at
the convention to some much smaller number- then why not REALLY go for
"one person, one vote" and just assign apportionment based on the
numbers actually voting in any given caucus, convention or primary?
That, I should think, would prove a proposition far more fair than any
suggesting that those who vote in our primary no longer count as
people who have votes.

Ah, but there's the rub- a convention whose delegate numbers could not
be determined until after all of that very year's caucuses,
conventions and primaries are held! Hardly seems doable.

If it ISN'T doable, however, than all talk of "one person, one vote"
is merely rhetoric from my perspective, since apportionment is not
actually being based on who's actually voting in each state.
_______________________________________________
Pnp-wg mailing list
Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg