[Pnp-wg] jump starting the process

[Steve Greenfield]

From: "Kirit" <kamva@allvantage.com>

> 1) You have exclusively focused on delegation size and process rules
> as the factors which contributed to the convention result

Where exactly did I state that? My entire letter is attached below and I
never said anything even remotely like it. This is not disagreement. This is
error.

My proposal is entirely focused on the mechanics of the process itself. I
have no preconceived position on any outcomes. I am arguing on the basis of
the rationalizations behind the various mathematics.

> 2) In summarily judging the electoral success of a state, how are you
> accounting for campaigns undertaken but not won?

Again, this is not a point of disagreement, it is a point of error. I never
said only victorious elections should be counted. Quite the contrary, the
emphasis on victories is one of the primary flaws of the old system that I
criticized.

My system DOES account for campaigns undertaken but not won. Under the old
system, a Stevens Point, Wisconsin, an unopposed incumbent winning with 7
votes counts as a victory, whereas a candidate in a multi-party race for
Attorney General in California who gets 400,000 votes gets no credit at all.
This is one of the main things we need to change. Unfortunately it's not
reasonable to try to extrapolate individual districts into statewide trends.
For example, in my local (New Paltz, NY) as of last night's special school
election we have 5 Green Party elected officials. Our vote average per
candidate is 400. Our town has a population of 13,000. Statewide we could
extrapolate that as the "potential" for 7,300 elected officials with a total
"potential" state tally of 540,000 votes, but we don't pretend that because
we know that our local is organizationally stronger than most in our state,
and also in a community where Greens have become prominent in public life.
Since 1998 when we ran our first statewide campaign, our candidates for
statewide office (US Senate, Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, NOT
counting presidential totals, especially the 244,000 Nader got in 2000) have
averaged 43,000 votes per race in a pretty narrow scattergram ranging
between 38,000 and 51,000 over a bunch of races. We consider 43,000 to be a
fair estimate of our demonstrated statewide ballot strength, and we don't
argue with being judged in accordance with that. I DO have a problem with
Texas trying to pretend that the Ben Levy, Gary Dugger, or Charles Mauch
results from 2000, all races in which no Democrat ran in a state that's 37%
blue, should be part of their average. Those are anti-republican protest
votes from Democrats, not a sign of Green support. Their statewide trend
since 2000 has been around 50,000 and I have no problem with them presenting
that as a factor in apportionment considerations.

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

And, with all due respect, the lack of accuracy in reading, reporting, and
critiquing the content of my proposal is even less convincing.

Steve Greenfield
New York