[Pnp-wg] Apportionment CAN be done.

[Steve Greenfield]

> The 2004 formula used four different criteria, only one based solely on
population.

This is incorrect. The ratio derived from the Electoral College is by
population, and the ratio derived from CC seats is population-based, since
the CC is population based. http://www.gp.org/convention/delegate_1.html
Didn't you create this?

> If we used voter registration, California would have 300,000+ members,

Also incorrect. You have doubled their enrollment. California's state report
is for 160,579 members.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror/county_10_18_04.pdf

If we are going to discuss the viability of various proposals, it would be
very helpful if everyone fact-checked before hitting "send." It's hard
enough to weigh the pros and cons without dissembling.

Steve Greenfield
New York

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Dibloc@aol.com>
To: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Apportionment CAN be done.


> The 2004 formula used four different criteria, only one based solely on
population. The other three were based on Green activity. The formula took
into account Green officeholders, votes for Nader in 2000 (or a race in
which a Green ran against the bigger party's) and number of CC reps.
Contrary to what some believe, additional CC reps (beyond the minimum 2) are
supposed to based not only on congressional districts but on Green activity
in those districts. North Carolina is eligable for a third CC rep based on
our number of congressinal districts but we do not have documented Green
activity in enough districts to justify the third rep.
>
> I don't know the answer on how to count state membership, that is why it
was not used in the formula. If we use people who voted for a Green
candidate, NC would have 37,000 members (based on my last run) and Michagin
would have over 100,000 members. If we used voter registration, California
would have 300,000+ members, NC would have 0. If we used dues paying
members, Wi would have around 300 members. I don't think there is a good
answer to this question. There are way too many variables in how states
count membership.
>
> Gray Newman
>
> In a message dated 2/24/2005 11:54:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Phil
Huckelberry" <phil@mcleancountygreens.org> writes:
>
> >My state categorically refuses to accept any formula that rewards states
> >just because they're partisan registration states. Period.
> >
> >The election law in Illinois is designed to beat us down. We will not
> >accept the national party using that election law against us.
> >
> >I'm open to reasonable compromise proposals, but registration numbers are
> >worthless evaluations of comparing state to state. Total population is
> >far more fundamentally fair.
> >
> >Even raw membership numbers, in my opinion, are not very indicative of
> >much of anything, because some states prioritize building up raw
> >registration numbers and others do not. Wisconsin is the perfect example
> >- they pour immense effort into raw party-building and have gotten
> >numerous people elected. Holding it against them because they have under
> >500 dues-paying members would, in my opinion, be ludicrous.
> >
> >I still find total population to be a fairer determinant than either of
> >the above. I could accept using membership numbers as a component of a
> >formula. But not if those membership numbers awarded 120,000 members to
> >California and 400 to Illinois. That's clearly, fundamentally, absurd.
> >
> >Phil Huckelberry
> >Illinois Green Party
> >_______________________________________________
> >Pnp-wg mailing list
> >Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> >http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>