[Pnp-wg] Population, fallacies, fairness

[jamais vu']

I'm from Louisiana.  I'll be sure to indicate in the future but won't bother 
cluttering up the listserv this time.

thanks

Robert Caldwell
Louisiana

>From: Jeff Peterson <peterson@lakeland.ws>
>Reply-To: peterson@lakeland.ws
>To: jamais vu' <jamaisvu182@hotmail.com>
>CC: pnp-wg@gp-us.org
>Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Population, fallacies, fairness
>Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:24:14 -0600
>
>I asked before and I'll ask again: Will people please be courteous enough 
>to indicate their state of residence with their signature? Robert makes 
>numerous references to "my state" here, but I'm left having to guess which 
>state that is.
>
>Jeff Peterson
>Wisconsin
>
>jamais vu' wrote:
>
>>Population based apportionment, debunking fallacies and building a party 
>>with fundamental fairness
>>
>>Greg Garretts assertion that apportionment be based on population flies 
>>in the face of basic
>>Fairness and democracy. If state X has 10 Greens but because its a 
>>populous state gets 10 delegates, and state Y is slightly less populous 
>>with 5,000 registered Greens but only gets 8
>>delegates something is fundamentally wrong. We need to look at reality. 
>>Not what could be, what may be, or what wed all hope to be. I think James 
>>Leas made this point yesterday when
>>he explains that by basing on total population in a state, wed actually 
>>be effectively representing non-Greens. Greg reinforces this when he 
>>creates a system that gives Texas- a party
>>barely more functional than my own- more delegates than the MA 
>>Green-Rainbow (my party in
>>grad school) or NY. I think Greg should be willing to dialogue instead of 
>>trying to steamroll his proposal. If we cant fix this fundamental problem 
>>of unfairness we may not have a party that is representative of (and for) 
>>society-at-large.
>>
>>Of course states with ballot access and registration have an advantage for 
>>enrollment. But these things arent static. Minimum apportionment (of at 
>>least 1 or 2 delegates) should be satisfactory
>>protection for these states. We may need to create some *minor* 
>>modification based on an index
>>of Green votes (as Forrest suggests) , other indicators (Green membership 
>>forms, etc) This should not be the primary factor but makes more sense 
>>than simple overall state population as
>>an adjustment to enrollement.
>>
>>I live in a medium to less populous (9 electoral votes) state with a small 
>>Green Party (just under 1000 registered other- Green and an activist 
>>base of just under 100. Why should we get delegates to convention based on 
>>some 5 million people rather than the some 1000, while Texas with a 
>>relatively small party gets numbers California with ½ of all Greens in the 
>>US gets about 20% of delegates?
>>
>>Greg asserts that &no matter where Greens run for office they get about 
>>the same proportion of the vote, so measuring population measures green 
>>voters. Can he reasonably say, with a straight face that New Orleans 
>>Green campaigns (usually 2-6%) do as well as San Francisco ones?
>>I dont understand why he continues to rely on the population at large of 
>>a state. This is not a republican governmental form where we are 
>>representing a state. Shouldnt delegates (and cc members) be representing 
>>GREENS in a state!!! Again, I think James Leas makes this point.
>>
>>Id better hold off on additional comments until Im able to more fully 
>>confer with members of my state party.
>>
>>Lastly, I nominate Steve Greenfield OR Forrest Hill as one of the 
>>co-facilitators.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Robert Caldwell
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Pnp-wg mailing list
>>Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
>>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>>
>>
>
>