[Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
Greg Gerritt
gerritt@mindspring.com
Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:08:48 -0500
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,
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
CT 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
The point of this chart is to show that there is no correlation between size
of party and how wel their candiedates do. All of the variabiltiy in this
chart of randomly selected races can be accounted for by factors other than
size of party. the variability within states is greater than the
variability between states. And some of the smallest state parties have the
highest average vote percentages. Enough said. greg
> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:28:57 -0500
> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
>
> Greg Gerritt wrote:
>
> "A more detailed analysis of those numbers is not going to give us any
> clerer
> of a picture, so why do more work that will not add more value."
>
> This committee was brought into existence by the CC for the express purpose
> of doing this work. We are called a Working Group. Those of us that were
> nominated by our states were sent with the expectation that we will be doing
> this work. We have been assigned to the task of doing this work, and have
> volunteered our time, talents, and industry to accept this assignment. If
> you entered this process with the attitude that doing the work in a thorough
> manner is pointless, you have no business being here. If our timeframe is as
> short as you keep saying it is, then you should step aside and let someone
> else onto the committee that is interested in performing our tasks.
>
> How could you even ask whether I looked at the numbers? The numbers were
> just a splattering of digits on a page, with no explanation of what they
> were or where they came from. Of course I looked at the numbers. My
> complaint was that there was nothing I could learn from doing so. Nothing
> you are saying now makes that random splattering of digits any more useful
> in considering your thesis. If this is not a consequence of a disrespectful
> attitude towards this committee and its assignment, then the only other
> options open to me are to question your sobriety or your sanity.
>
> As far as whether more thorough investigation would give us a clearer
> picture, I already demonstrated in a single sentence, showing results from
> California vs. Texas and New York, that your thesis is 100% wrong. It did
> not take lengthy or detailed work to find and present those facts. Only an
> interest in learning the truth, which you regrettably do not share. The
> truth is that there is no close correlation between average statewide Green
> vote totals as a proportion of the total votes cast in statewide elections,
> and much evidence of very wide disparities.
>
> If your thesis is 100% wrong, and it is, then any proposal you make derived
> from or rationalized by that thesis is without merit.
>
> Steve Greenfield
> New York
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
> To: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>; <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
>
>
>> Steve, I looked at the numbers and found that they were essentially the
> same
>> across the country, I made no claim to doing detailed statistical analyis.
>> Anyone who is intereseted could lok at the same numbers I have looked
>> at.They are on the gpus website I randomly clicked on links and looked at
>> the numbers. There are patterns easily discernable to the naked eye, and
>> the numbers I sent along to this list show that pattern. It does not
> matter
>> what races they were in as long as I did not specifically seek to bias
> them,
>> and I did not. Did you actually look at the numbers? I believe anyone who
>> looked at them would see the same pattern that i saw. It does not matter
>> what state you are in, Greens get comparable percentages of the vote. How
>> is that disrespectful?
>>
>> I am looking for a way to make sure Greens feel represented. As are you.
>> We are volunteers, not paid consultants. I presented the data of 10
> minutes
>> of research on a saturday morning. I never claimed it was anything else.
> A
>> more detailed analysis of those numbers is not going to give us any clerer
>> of a picture, so why do more work that will not add more value.
>>
>> Yes I have an agenda. I want a vibrant and growing green party. We are
>> looking for a represntation formula that encourages vibrancy. We disagree
>> on what that formula might be. The fact that you take that disagreement
> for
>> an agenda says more about you than me. greg gerritt gpri
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
>>> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:24:04 -0500
>>> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Specific apportionment plan
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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