[Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan

[Steve Greenfield]

I don't believe we shouldn't target 1000 as a delegate count. If we can =
achieve delivery of the same weight of votes in accordance with the same =
proportions with lower numbers of people, and we can, we should do it.

For a lot of people, travel costs are an imposition. This is the Green =
Party and a lot of us live close to the margin. There was a lot of =
fundraising to send delegates last year. It's a lot easier to raise =
funds for 250 or 450 delegates that 1000. There is a lot less fossil =
fuel burned. A wider range of facilities at a wider range of costs are =
available to a smaller group. Discussions can be better held with a =
smaller group. A lot fewer hotel rooms need to be reserved, and a much =
higher percentage of delegates can find floors and couches to crash on. =
These are very serious concerns. Too many delegates failed to =
materialize in Milwaukee. That's one of the things that has to be fixed. =
Aiming for a delegate count of 1000 is not the way to fix that.

Yesterday I posed a rationale for a delegate apportionment scheme based =
on the idea of a one-delegate minimum and the right for every state to =
self-determines membership criteria and self-report their estimates. My =
total delegation size was 132, as opposed to Forrest's proposed 100, =
because his plan, by insisting on the cap at 100, reduced some states' =
totals well below their fair proportion simply to accomodate the cap and =
not in observance of any democratic principle. Phil suggests that two =
delegates per state should be the minimum, and I can accomodate that =
within the numbers I was planning to send by increasing my originally =
proposed total delegation size and recomputing each state's allotment =
based on the new proposed total size(s).

There are no states that we refer to as "enrollment states" with higher =
assigned delegate counts that do not have an electoral record to back =
those numbers up. 9 enrollment states have conspicuously low enrollment =
numbers, and below-average electoral histories indicating that their low =
assignments are also justified. In all 9 of these states the delegation =
size would mathematically be 1 even in a total delegation of 1000. The =
two states in my plan that appear to have conspicuously low delegation =
sizes compared to their state populations (in accordance with their =
self-reported membership) which I believe could make a case for an =
increase based on statewide electoral histories are probably Wisconsin =
and Texas, but there could be others. Maybe Minnesota. My plan includes =
an appeals committee which would
hear any state's request to renegotiate their delegation size based on =
any criteria they themselves would choose to best make that appeal. The =
combination of self-determination, self-reporting, and appeals process =
really should cover any questions about fairness to all states, =
regardless of their ballot access or state registration status.

Note: the 24 states marked with an asterisk are known to have well under =
1000 Greens and identify themselves as such. Since this model requires =
approximately 3600 Greens to mathematically qualify for 2 seat, and 2700 =
to be "rounded up" to a second seat, all of them are assigned two votes =
simply because Phil wants to see a two-vote minimum in an =
estimated-to-be proportional system. I would go so far as to say that =
all of the non-asterisked 2-delegate states also don't come close to =
2700 to 3600 members simply because I have never seen anyone in these =
states claim to have that many. The first three (TX, WI, and MN) are =
broken out from the rest because of my expectation in advance that all =
three of them could present mitigating data, such as statewide electoral =
results, to justify a larger delegation.

The total number of seats for this model is 255, pretty close to my =
target. I'll call that Plan A. If we really wanted to get closer to true =
proportionality while retaining the 2-seat minimum, one could simply =
double the counts of the first 13 states and add one to Connecticut. =
This would make a total delegation size of 443, still far more =
manageable (and environmentally sustainable) in terms of implementing an =
actual convention than 1000.  I'll call that Plan B, and put the totals =
for each state under Plan B in parentheses.

Steve Greenfield, New York

Plan A    Plan B

CA 100    (200)
NY 25      (50)
ME 12      (24)
PA 9         (18)
OR 8         (16)
NM 6        (12)
MA 6        (12)
MD 5        (10)
FL 4          (8)
DC 3         (6)
CO 3         (6)
AZ 3          (6)
AK 3          (6)
-------
TX 2
WI  2
MN 2
-------
CT 2          (3)
MI 2
MO 2
AL 2
GA 2
HI 2
LA 2
-------
AR 2 *
MS 2 *
IA 2 *
KS 2 *
NC 2 *
NE 2 *
NJ 2 *
NV 2 *
OK 2 *
RI 2 *
SC 2 *
TN 2 *
UT 2 *
VA 2 *
VT 2 *
WA 2 *
WV 2*
OH 2 *
IL 2 *
IN 2 *
ID 2 *
DE 2 *
NH *
MT *

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---