[Pnp-wg] Trial Balloon Apportionment Formula

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:28:19 -0800

Hi Jeff and Owen,

  In the analysis you point to, I don't disparage voting strength as a 
relative measure of membership size, I just disagree with the ah hoc 
voting method used by the GPUS. The goal is to determine relative 
membership size of each state as a proportion of the total membership. 
If you are going to use voting  as a measure, then I suggest you simple 
count the number of votes cast for Green candidates. For example in 
California, Laura Wells received over 410,000 votes for controller in 
2002 (about 6% of the vote). More people voted for Laura  than the sum 
total of all votes received by Green candidates in the other 49 states 
combined. Under the voting strength rules developed by the GPUS this 
result did not count toward our delegate allocation.

You could also use the number of elected Green Party members, or the 
number of candidates run for office, etc. and then see how this compares 
with other states. For example, about 1/3 of the Green Office Holders 
live in CA (and if we are lucky we will elect the first African American 
Green to City council in May).

A second problem with their voting strength method was that is 
multiplies the number of votes received by the presidential candidate 
(ironically Nader) by the percent of the state vote.This makes on sense 
because it penalizes the membership of a state where there are high 
concentrations of Greens surrounded by a sea of 
Democrats/Republicans/Lesser Evil Voters.  To put it another way, would 
you give less representation to a large group of Greens who happen to 
live in a region with a lot of non-Green voters, than to a few Greens 
who live in a region where their are few voters?

Forrest

Jeff Peterson wrote:

> I've had the same problem, Owen, even thought I checked to see that my 
> settings were configured so that I'd get a copy of anything I send to 
> the list. So far that's not happening. But others are getting my 
> posts, I have learned, just as we all got yours. So carry on! And 
> thanks for the info from MA!
>
> Jeff Peterson
> Wisconsin
>
> Owen Broadhurst wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>