[Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
Steve Greenfield
bicyclesax@earthlink.net
Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:24:04 -0500
Well, thanks for clearing that up. Now you force me to chuck the "all due
respect" part because none is due.
You obviously don't take this process seriously, or worse yet, are openly
hostile to it.
The Coordinating Committee of the Green Party of the United States formed
this committee to study and improve the Presidential Nominating Process, and
that is what we will do.
Approximately 350,000 Greens and the future of progressive politics in this
country depend on a satisfactory outcome to this process.
If you have some other agenda, or some problem that interferes with your
ability to contribute and/or "work and play well with others" then you
should resign and let the adults try to have a productive conversation.
Steve Greenfield
New York
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
To: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
> I sent my analysis, you asked for the numbers, I gabve you wqnat numbers I
> had scribbeled on my paper. Mostly I was just looking at them and they
were
> in my head. You can look up the nubmers just as easily. I randomly
picked
> races in random states.
>
> > From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 21:22:28 -0500
> > To: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
> >
> > With all due respect, but with MUCH less patience, what is all this?
What
> > races are they, what years are they from, are any of them statewide
races,
> > which are the only ones that matter for our purposes, were any of them
> > obvious outliers, I mean, what IS this stuff?
> >
> >> In partisan races more than 11% is always a 2 person race.
> >
> > Also false. I got 21% last year in a race where the Dems won with 48%
and
> > the Republicans lost with 28%. The big losers were the Conservatives,
who
> > didn't campaign but were on the ballot.
> >
> > This big stack of numbers means nothing by itself. How can you be
offering
> > it as the basis for a proposal? Is this how you have fun?
> >
> > Steve Greenfield
> > New York
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
> > To: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>;
<Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 12:58 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
> >
> >
> >> AK 3.77 MN 2.29 2.69, 26 CA 1.24,3.89, 11, 7.4, 2.2, 50, 2.3,,8.2,
> >> 29.7, 1.87, 17.4, 10 MS 12.4 AZ 7.5 MT 4, 1.89, 9 NE 2.8 1 NV 2
NJ
> >> 3.55 23.1 1.79 NM 17.6, 25.6, 9.6 NY 5.7 .12, .5, 9.6, 60, 1.67
OH
> >> 2.98, 4.27, 5.84 CO 28.8, 4, 4.8 CTm 5.06, 27.28, 17.9, 9.53, 11.36
> > RI
> >> 29.1, 21, 1.3, 5.4 OR 6.59, 16.45, 2.32, 5, 13, 4.25, 1.55 DC 7.12,
PA
> > .8,
> >> 5.2, 5.3, 1.3, 1, 9.56 FL 5 44.3 HI 2.5 SC 12, 27.4, 1.2, 18.9
TN
> >> 8.2, IL 8.9, 25.2, 14, 8.3 UT 1, 9.6, 10.9 VT 3, 1.3, 3
> >>
> >> In partisan races more than 11% is always a 2 person race.
> >>
> >> greg gerritt ri
> >>
> >>> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> >>> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:51:02 -0500
> >>> To: <Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
> >>>
> >>> I hope you don't mind citing that. I've done some research and find
> > quite
> >>> the opposite.
> >>>
> >>> For one thing, your blanket statement doesn't explain how some Green
> >>> candidates actually WIN. If all candidacies were polling around the
> > same,
> >>> then we would all be losing by around 99% of the vote. And if you mean
> >>> specifically that all STATEWIDE candidacies were polling around the
> > same,
> >>> we'd have a hard time explaining why California has posted repeated
> >>> statewide totals in the neighborhood of 400,000 and NY & TX have
> > repeatedly
> >>> polled around 1/9th of that number while our total state populations
are
> >>> more than half that of California. If Green strength in state
> > populations
> >>> were really equal, NY and TX would be regularly polling over 200,000,
> > and
> >>> we're not, we're polling only a quarter of that..
> >>>
> >>> Citations, please?
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
> >>> To: <Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:24 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I did some research this morning. It confirms that no matter where
> > Greens
> >>>> run for office they get about the same proportiono of the vote, so
> >>> measuring
> >>>> population measures green voters. I went to the elections data base
> > and
> >>>> randomly looked at vote percentage from aobut 100 races. Big states,
> >>> small
> >>>> states, staes with larger or smaller green parties. If you factor in
> > the
> >>>> number of candidates in the race, Greens do just about as well
> > everywhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for that diminishing the voting strength of RI in the national
> > party, I
> >>>> am a strong advoceate of one person one vote based on the idea that
> > equal
> >>>> numbers of people deserve the same represntation, not that
> > representation
> >>>> should be apportioned based on voter turnout. If that means a smaller
> >>>> delegation for RI, I can live with that. greg
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: James M Leas <jolly39@juno.com>
> >>>>> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:24:13 -0500
> >>>>> To: Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> >>>>> Subject: Fw: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since about 97-99% of the electorate in this country do not yet
> > consider
> >>>>> themselves greens, apportioning based on population is almost
> > equivalent
> >>>>> to apportioning based on everyone who is not a green.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Greg gives interesting information and makes good points. He
confirms
> >>>>> that voting data shows that Rhode Island has about 1% of the greens
> >>>>> nationally. But nothing in Greg's remarks explains why he wishes to
> > base
> >>>>> his system on population which according to his numbers would give
> > Rhode
> >>>>> Island only 1/3 of 1% of the delegates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A system based on population gives majority representation in our
> >>>>> decision making bodies to those who are not greens and
> > underenfranchises
> >>>>> those who are greens, including Rhode Islanders.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would further ask, if delegates are to represent the population of
> >>>>> their state and not just the greens in their state, and if 97-99% of
> > the
> >>>>> population are not greens, how could we possibly expect the results
to
> >>>>> conform to green values and provide an all-out green campaign?
> >>>>> Jimmy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>>> From: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>
> >>>>> To: Presidential Nominating WG <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
> >>>>> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:15:18 -0500
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
> >>>>> Message-ID: <BE45C395.3903C%gerritt@mindspring.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RI was an enrollment state, but is no longer. RI has a consistent
> >>>>> history
> >>>>> of under enrollment, and votes for green candidates consistently
above
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> national average at every level. .3% of the population of the US.
> >>> About
> >>>>> 700 registered Greens until disenfranchisement, 25000 green votes in
> >>>>> 2000,
> >>>>> more than 1% of the national total (more than 3xs percentage in
> >>>>> population)
> >>>>> for Cobb/LaMarche, and the highest percentage for any state senate
> >>>>> candidate
> >>>>> in the country in 2004.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Over the weekend I am going to propose a very simple population
based
> >>>>> system
> >>>>> for the convention. 4 delegates per 1 million population.
> > Approximately
> >>>>> 1200
> >>>>> total that gives everyone including Wyoming, at least 2 seats at a
> >>>>> convention. For the CC I am going to propose to a more appropriate
> > body
> >>>>> one
> >>>>> seat per 1 million population with a minimum of 2 delegates per
state.
> >>>>> That
> >>>>> would give CA 35 seats, NY somewhere around 20 seats. The original
> > body
> >>>>> was
> >>>>> sized according to how many people did we think would be an
> > appropriate
> >>>>> size
> >>>>> for full debate on line. Considering that so few delegates
> > participate
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> the debate, mostly they just vote on line, and that the annual
> > meetings
> >>>>> are
> >>>>> designed to have as few votes as possible becauee Greens when they
> > rush
> >>>>> make
> >>>>> mistakees while the on lline voting system allows for time for
> >>>>> reflection,
> >>>>> there is no reason to keep the size of the CC down to less than 150.
> >>> 300
> >>>>> would allow us to replace the bounded proportionality with something
> >>>>> approaching full proportionality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given the crazy quilt of election laws we face, and the political
> >>>>> cultures
> >>>>> that vary so much regionally, it is still amazing that electoral
> >>> success,
> >>>>> mesured in victories, percentages of the vote, or however else you
> > want
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> measure, are much more similar across the entire country than
> >>> dissimilar,
> >>>>> especially at the local level.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RI has some electoral sucess. We have one elected official, a city
> >>>>> councillor. We get consistently good showings at the polls. But we
> >>> have
> >>>>> very few offices that are open to be run for and no non partisan
races
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> people to use as the beginning steps in their political careers.
> >>>>> Wisconsin
> >>>>> demonstrates great strength in electing local officials because they
> >>> have
> >>>>> non partisan local races. They also do not have partisn
registration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maine has clean elections money, and a system that requires Green
> >>>>> registrants to be the signers of ballot petitions. They have 20,000
> >>>>> registered Greens. RI with the same population approximately does
not
> >>>>> require Green signatures on ballot petitons, only requiring that
> > signers
> >>>>> be
> >>>>> registered voters. The political culture of registration is
therefore
> >>>>> totally different. Maine Greens had to focus on registration to get
> >>>>> candidates on the ballot, in RI that is not a consideration at all,
so
> >>>>> while
> >>>>> we do registration, it is much less of a big deal. But our
> > candidates,
> >>>>> while fewer in number, do almost as well in elections.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some states face ballot access laws, registration laws, political
> >>>>> cultures
> >>>>> that make their job harder. But given time all Green parties are
> > going
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> eventually end up pretty level, they are all going to have success
and
> >>>>> get
> >>>>> similar voting percentages. If we maintain our future focus, then
it
> > is
> >>>>> perfectly reasonable to award delegates based on populatian as
> >>> ultimately
> >>>>> all the state parties will have equal success and to penalize or
> > reward
> >>>>> state parties because of the ballot laws and political culture they
> > find
> >>>>> themselves in, things not of their own doing, seems to be
acquiescing
> > to
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> corporate parties rather than building a new world.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wil present formal proposals soon. greg
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> >>>>>> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:42:42 -0500
> >>>>>> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> >>>>>> Subject: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> >>>>> multipart/alternative
> >>>>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> >>>>> text/html
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Pnp-wg mailing list
> >>> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> >>> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>