Fw: Re: [Pnp-wg] represntation

[James M Leas]

I agree with Steve Greenfield's approach. 

Greens in Vermont were dissatisfied with the nomination system used by
the GPUS in 2004 under which the national candidate was selected by a
slim majority of delegates who represented a small minority of greens.

I believe that the undemocratic representation system helped bring about
the results of the convention and that reapportionment is an urgent item
for this working group. 

The green rejection of Nader/Camejo last June was front page news in the
corporate media and the rejection gave a vast boost to the ABB sentiment
the corporate media was promoting. That undemocratic representation
system enabled the GPUS to reject running an all out campaign against the
Democrats and Republicans in 2004 and go with "safe states" candidates
that earned it those national headlines.

The national Green Party rejection of Nader/Camejo severely damaged not
just the Green Party but all independent campaigns, including the anti
Iraq war movement: after the Green Party took the lead in rejecting
Nader/Camejo and supporting unknown candidates advocating a "safe states"
campaign, large numbers of progressive activists joined the national
greens in giving at least back handed support to Kerry, and the anti Iraq
war movement took an extended leave of absence. It has not yet recovered.


In my view, the undemocratic representation system within the GPUS that
permitted delegates from states with few greens to dominate the decision
making was key to the awful political decision made at that convention. 

I believe a representation system based on one green one vote gives the
GPUS more protection from external influences, in particular is more
likely to protect the GPUS from pressure similar to ABB that we will
certainly see in the future. This idea is enshrined in the first of the
ten key values of the GPUS, the value grassroots democracy. 

Such a democratic representation system will also at least provide
legitimacy to decisions of the GPUS and command the respect of greens at
the grass roots level. The decision by the Vermont state party meeting to
endorse Nader/Camejo and to refuse the green party ballot line to
Cobb/LaMarche reflected that lack of legitimacy of the
GPUS convention. It also marked a refusal to participate in the safe
states strategy, which is another name for backhanded support for the
Democratic Party. 

I believe that if the GPUS repeats its undemocratic representation scheme
and repeats its backhanded support for the 
Democratic Party there is a liklihood that other states will refuse to go
along. To squelch that example of refusal and state party party
independence some in the GPUS have gone on the rampage against the
Vermont Green Party. I believe that if this committee provides leadership
toward reapportionment based on one person one vote Vermont and other
states are much more likely to to accept decisions made by the GPUS and
those decisions are likely to have the respect and admiration of greens
all over the country. 

I was elected as a delegate to the GPUS last summer for the purpose of
bringing our message to the GPUS, that (1) Vermont will not accept a safe
states strategy and backhanded support to Democratic national candidates
and (2) to help bring about a reapportionment within the GPUS to
establish one person one vote to help ensure that the political disaster
of 2004 is not repeated. 

Several methods are available to replace the present system that sharply
under-enfranchises most greens because they happen to live in states with
larger numbers of other greens, like NY and CA, and that
over-enfranchises a minority of greens that live in states with few other
greens, including Vermont. I would support any of the various methods to
reapportion that are based on a measure of greens in each state, such as
(a) registered greens in registration states, (b) minimum presumed number
for each state, (c) number of signed up greens or another way of counting
greens in non-registration states, and (d) votes for green national
candidates in 2000 or 2004. 
Jimmy

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
To: <Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:57:10 -0500
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] represntation
Message-ID: <06ae01c51b6b$cff35ad0$6401a8c0@d6lb1711>
References: <BE43DEB0.38F19%gerritt@mindspring.com> 
        <421E9790.3050207@comcast.net> <421EA4D8.3090202@lakeland.ws> 
        <8e192b12050225012163952f73@mail.gmail.com>

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


_______________________________________________
Pnp-wg mailing list
Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg