[Pnp-wg] Trial Balloon Apportionment Formula

[Owen Broadhurst]

I have offered some comments relative to the situation in
Massachusetts, and potential problems with several apportionment
formulae that I have seen discussed both on and off-list over some
period of several months. I did not see that more recent post of mine
in my mail-box, and so do not know that most members have.

It is here:

http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/pnp-wg/2005-February/000088.html

============

Relating, however, to trial baloon apportionment formulae- there was
once this trial balloon I floated before the GRP's External Relations
Committee:

[External Relations] Convention Delegation Size: the Hill Analysis and
My Comments
Owen Broadhurst thersites2467 at hotmail.com 
Tue Oct 12 15:27:50 EDT 2004 

Previous message: [External Relations] Re: [statecom] CC Resolution:
My Final Plea
Next message: [External Relations] Re: [statecom] Convention
Delegation Size: the Hill Analysis and MyComments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hill Analysis is here:

http://www.greensfornader.net/Convention_Analysis.pdf

===============

My belief is that the Hill analysis is generally correct regarding 
specifically how convention delegation size is determined. I find myself in 
agreement with most of Mr. Hill's arguments specific to convention delegate 
size determination. I, too, believe that Electoral College delegation within 
a state, and CC delegation size dependant on only the amount of 
Congressional districts within a state, can in no way reflect the true size 
of any state Green party. I, too, believe these should in no way help 
determine the size of any state's convention delegation. That's just not 
democratic.

However, where Mr. Hill disparages "voting strength" assessment, I believe a 
"voting strength" assessment is necessary to help in determining covention 
delegation size since "soft support" is perhaps our best means of 
determining state party success beyond registration- and we clearly need 
means beyond registration in the determination of state party membership in 
order to help ensure that state party sentiments beyond only the very 
largest are given weight at the convention.

Mr. Hill's proposed remedy fails in that he would have delegation size 
determined as a percentage of total nationwide party registrants. This fails 
in that the total amount of state Green party nationwide cannot be 
determined by the total amount of registrants. To assign a small percentage 
of total amount of registrants to state party delegations from states with 
Draconian election laws does not allow for determination of their true size 
or true "soft support" within that state.

What I would propose instead as the basic determinant of convention 
delegation size is state party membership. Where states allow for members as 
registrants, I believe it is appropriate to simply use amount of state Green 
party registrants to determine state membership size. In states with 
Draconian election laws, we should allow the state parties themselves to 
provide us with these numbers. Given how such states must tally dues-paying 
membership and/ or party local membership for their very own internal 
purposes, I suggest that we place faith in the state party database.

Determination of delegation size on party rolls alone, however, does 
unfairly discriminate against state parties hampered by Draconian election 
laws. State with ease of party registration offer state parties advantages 
that other state parties lack in ease of party recruitment. Draconian 
election laws hamper party recruitment efforts. Therefore, "soft support" as 
in "voting strength" should be used to help in the determination of 
convention delegation size, although Mr. Hill disparages this.

The Libertarian Party uses the following formula:


Affiliate Party Delegate Entitlements:

Each affiliate party shall be entitled to send delegates to each Regular 
Convention on the following basis:


One delegate for each 0.1 percent, or fraction thereof, of the total Party 
membership in that affiliate; provided that at least one such delegate must 
be a resident of that State or District.


One delegate for each 0.25 percent, or fraction thereof, of the votes cast 
nationwide for the Libertarian Party candidate in the most recent 
presidential election, cast in that affiliate's state.

Sincerely yours,
Owen R. Broadhurst


=================

Now, the Libertarian formula would not be one that I would advocate
personally without knowing how this would affect total delegation size
of all states- nor would I advocate limiting a voter strength
assessment merely to presidential contests.

My trial balloon (to which I am NOT committed) elicited this concern:

[External Relations] Re: [statecom] Convention Delegation Size: the
Hill Analysis and MyComments
Aimee Smith Aimee at green-rainbow.org 
Tue Oct 12 22:41:38 EDT 2004 

Previous message: [External Relations] Convention Delegation Size: the
Hill Analysis and My Comments
Next message: [External Relations] FW: [BRPP] represntation 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Owen,
My only concern with your suggestion is we are supposed to be a
movement/party. Some states will more havily focus on movement
over party than others.  This kind of "weighting" preferences states
who do massive voter reg, but don't necessarily include people in
locals or other active ways.  This kind of weighting may be legitimate
for a presidential primary because that is itself an electoral contest, but
I do fear that some of the thinking in parties that lean the other
way could be useful in having a voice even there.  And certainly when
it comes to weighting on representation on the GPUS coordinating
committee...

this feeds into our discussion of different growth models for locals
at the last statecom.
Do we want parties to prioritize voter reg?
Will that emphesis undercut our values in the long run?
I agree this leaves us with "fuzzy" math to gauge fuzzy
things, but somehow there should be acknowledgement
of the harmony of goals of our party/movement...
The Libertarian party DOES emphesize voter reg, so
this isn't a problem for them.

How to caluculate the incalculables...

Aimee