[Pnp-wg] population based proposal
Forrest Hill
forrest_hill@comcast.net
Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:26:49 -0800
Hi Greg,
Interesting logic.
Let me get this straight, you are telling me that the electoral success
of CA is no better than states like AL, KS, NH. ND, OK, and WV, who
have not run a single candidate in the past 3 years; KY and WY who have
only run 1 candidate; or AR, NC, SD, and TN who have only run 2
candidates (CA has run over 200 local and statewide candidates during
this same period with about a 30% success rate).
Or that CA's success in electing Green's is no better than other states
even thought 35% of all elected Greens are in CA.
Or that our success at getting voters to vote Green is no better than
any other state event though the total number of votes cast for local
Green candidates over the past 3 years is 3,880,503, or 37% of all votes
cast for local or statewide Green candidates.
Or that the 8687 votes received by your Lt. Governor's candidate is
equivalent to the 419,873 votes received by Controller candidate Laura
Wells because the percentage of the vote cast is the same ( by this
logic CA should get 48 times more delegates than RI - 419873 / 8687 =
48.33 - I have argue for a much more equitable allocation of delegates
than that) - (by the way the turnout for that election in RI must have
only been about 145,000 which is only 13% of the total population - I
don't know what percent that is of the eligible voting pop. - any idea
why there was such a low turnout).
Point:
Of course I could go on, but basically there is a fundamental difference
between us in how we want to determine representation that may be
unresolvable (I don't know). I am fundamentally opposed to using a
"federalist model" since it disenfranchises (highly under-represents)
the majority of "known" Greens.
I believe that many people on this list and else where have gone out of
my way to suggest ways to fairly represent states where registration in
"not allowed" with out over-penalizing states that have been successful
in building their parties.
I am willing to assume that if every state could register voters they
would have "at least" 1% of all Greens living in their state (this is
approximately 5000 people). Currently in the 23 states that "do allow"
registration, only 10 have more that this number of registrants. Other
than WI, MI, OH and perhaps RI, I seriously doubt that if registration
was legal everywhere, other states would currently have more than 5000
Green registrants, at least at this point in our development.
I am willing to accept any formula that states want to come up with to
determine the "relative size" of their party membership compared to
other states. I believe that if people sit down and really try to
determine proportion of representation they should have - based on
voting strength, number of organized locals, money the raise, number of
elected candidates, or whatever other method they can justify - that
most states will come up with a fair assessment that we can all live with.
Finally, I believe that having fair representation strengthens the
party, not weakens it. The biggest misconception is that CA somehow acts
as a monolithic block. Come to any of our Plenaries and you will see how
untrue this conception really is. Greens in CA are all over the
political spectrum (as they should be). By fairly representing them at
the national level their "diverse" opinions will also be fairly
represented. The point is that it will be diverse opinions of actual
members, instead of the virtual members proposed under your federalist
system....
Best--
Forrest
Greg Gerritt wrote:
>Forrest, Where we differ is that I think it important to honor all state
>parties and encourage them to grow into the power of their states whereas
>you seem to want to only give power to the places that have ballot laws that
>make it easy and maintain that imbalance for an extended period of years.
>In other words you seem to be acquiescing to the ballot and election laws of
>the 2 parties. I am acquiescing to their boundaries in a way that I think
>helps grow green parties. So we disagree.
>
>You have what you are calling a big state party, but proportionally your
>electoral success is no better than anywhere else. With state rep and
>congressional candidates, the partisan candidacies that are most closely
>comparable across state lines, CA candidates do no better than they do
>anywhere else, including states where the party has almost no
>infrastructure. In other words we can all pick statistics to back up our
>visions of strength, and the ones I think are important show a pretty level
>playing field all acros the country, so that a population based
>representation is fair and offers us opportunity. You chose to offer
>statistics that favor your state.
>
>(I saw in your next post to the list a comparison of Linda Wells' 6% in a
>statewide race. Greens in RI have gotten 6% statewide (lt gov) as well and
>we are not the only state to see that. In other word her votes were
>proportional to population. )
>
>Clearly there are different visions of how to grow the Green Party. We
>believe different kinds of incentives will be most appropriate. There are
>many different systems of divvying up represntation that will work and are
>fair. Our job is to find the one that will best grow the Green Party and i
>am not convinced that giving more power to a few large states is going to do
>that.
>
>Maybe being a student of gpus history gets in my way here, maybe it helps,
>but in our national body the influence of small parties has been beneficial
>disproportional to the size of their parties. Giving more strength to the
>powerful has not had the same kind of beneficial effect. Expanding CA form
>2 seats to 13, from 1/30th to 1/7 has not particularly made us stronger. I
>see nothing that tells me that further expansion of the power of a few large
>states beyond their proportion in the population is going to do us any good.
>
>So we are arguing civics and politics. And yes I learned well my lessons
>about balancing the power of big and small states back in elementary school.
>It still applies. greg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: Forrest Hill <forrest_hill@comcast.net>
>>Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:03:02 -0800
>>To: Greg Gerritt <gerritt@mindspring.com>
>>Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] population based proposal
>>
>>Hi Greg,
>>
>>I've got to give you credit, you must have really paid attention in
>>civics class when they extolled the ventures of our republican form of
>>government. Unfortunately this is the Green Party (I think) and the
>>notion that we should use a regressive federalist system that would be
>>considered outmoded in Europe, South Africa, and even Iraq makes me
>>wonder if you are serious about this proposal.
>>
>>That said, if we are a federation of states, then I believe that each
>>state should have the right to hold a state nominating convention to
>>choose who to put on its presidential ballot. Personally, I don't like
>>moving in this direction because it is devise, however, if the GPUS is
>>unwilling to even consider implementing a system of proportional
>>representation, then they will leave states with the large Green Party
>>membership (who would be the most under-represented under you system) no
>>choice but to go it on there own.
>>
>>Forrest
>>
>>
>>
>>>A proposal for allocation of delegates to state parties for the 2008 Green
>>>Party Presidential Nominating convention.
>>>
>>>The Green Party convention shall be made up of delegations from the various
>>>state parties with each state party allocated one delegate for each 250,000
>>>people, 4 delegates for each 1 million people, that live in the various
>>>states. This would provide for a convention of approximately 1200 delegates
>>>with delegation sizes ranging from 2 to approximately 140.
>>>
>>>Explanation:
>>>
>>>A convention should be made up of delegations in which each delegate
>>>represents approximately the same number of people back home. The problem
>>>for the Green Party is to decide what to measure as the various state laws
>>>and the various state political cultures mean that actual measures of Greens
>>>in each state have different meanings and are really not comparable. Even
>>>when comparing state parties in which the ballot access and registration
>>>laws are similar, subtle differences often lead the parties in the different
>>>states to have very different ways of recognizing membership.
>>>
>>>Given that the Green Party of the United States is a federation of State
>>>Green Parties and is required to treat then all fairly, it is incumbent upon
>>>us to find measures that are strictly comparable across all states and
>>>ballot access laws. Within the realm of politics there is no measure that
>>>is truly comparable across 51 state lines.
>>>
>>>Noting the lack of strict comparability it still makes sense to look for
>>>markers that measure the relative size of Green Parties. One measure that
>>>seems more comparable across state lines than most others is the percentage
>>>of the vote that Green candiates receive on Election Day. A study of the
>>>Elections and Candidates data base on the GPUS website reveals an
>>>interesting regularity. From Maine to Hawaii, Alaska to Florida, Green
>>>candidates generally do about the same at the ballot box. There is a great
>>>deal of variability to be sure, but there are no states in which Green
>>>candidates do exceptionally better than they do in other states. The only
>>>trend I could discern, and that barely, was that in small population states
>>>Green candidates tended to have somewhat higher percentage of the vote than
>>>Green candiates running for the same office in a race with the same number
>>>of candidates in large population states.
>>>
>>>In other words the percentage of the Green vote does not vary all that much
>>>from state to state This trend of regularity across state lines does not
>>>extend not any other political measure, primarily because those other
>>>measures are so tied into state election laws and the political culture of
>>>the states.
>>>
>>>If simplicity is good, then noticing that Green votes are pretty much the
>>>same everywhere and that no other measures are strictly comparable gives us
>>>a starting point. In addition if we do not wish to punish state parties
>>>because they happen to be in states with more restrictive laws, it makes
>>>sense to use one very easily available number to determine the size of Green
>>>delegations to a nominating convention, Population.
>>>
>>>The argument for a convention of 1200 delegates has several key provisions.
>>>One is that in creating a fully proportional convention it allows for even
>>>the smallest state to send at least 2 delegates, which allows us to demand
>>>diversity in a way that if states send smaller delegations it is harder to
>>>achieve. A second provision is that a larger convention gives more people
>>>the opportunity to participate and bring that experience home. The Green
>>>Party should be striving to have the largest convention that it can pull
>>>together. It should be a stretch, and it most definitely should be bigger
>>>than the previous one until the green party eventually reaches a saturation
>>>point in the universe. It is money well spent. State parties can start
>>>preparing now if they can easily predict what their delegations will be 4
>>>years hence, and a population determined delegation gives them the simplest
>>>way to determine it.
>>>
>>>Chart. only a partial chart.
>>>
>>>
>>>CA 35 million people 140 delegates
>>>TX 22 million people 88 delegates
>>>NY 19 million people 76 delegates
>>>PA 12 million people 48 delegates
>>>MI 10 million people 40 delegates
>>>MA 6 million people 24 delegates
>>>KY 4.1 million people 16 delegates
>>>OK 3.5 million people 14 delegates
>>>ME 1.3 million people 5 delegates
>>>RI 1.1 million people 4 delegates
>>>SD .76 million people 3 delegates
>>>WY .5 million people 2 delegates
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--- 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>