[Pnp-wg] Counting Greens

[Steve Greenfield]

> Can you really equate on a 1:1 basis registered Greens who may
> never take any other action with self-identified party members who
> depending on the state pay dues and are on the official mailing list?

In some states we have no choice. Under New York election law, caucuses are
entirely state-regulated. We must use the state-provided registration lists
as the sole determinant of membership in the party. Nobody on the state list
can be excluded from voting in a party caucus for any reason. It's a
criminal offense. There are strict rules about how far in advance caucuses
must be publicly announced, how often, and in which media. And the best part
is, the law says the Party must bear the expense for fulfilling all these
regulations. The list goes on. Non-enrollment Green Parties are free to set
whatever rules they want for their decision-making processes. We are not. So
what we do in keeping our local parties active is we get a printout (or
CD-ROM) and a phone book and we try to say hello to everyone as often as we
can.

If the Green Party ever decided on a restricted "activist" or dues-paying
model for participating in national decisions, many states would not be
legally capable of participating on that basis. We're stuck with our
enrollment database whether we like it or not.

Just another reminder that state "assisted" party enrollment is not the
blessing so many of you imagine it to be. The only thing it has going for it
is easing the ability to get on the ballot in elections. That in and of
itself is so time and labor-saving, and candidacies being such an important
component of party building, that it makes the loss of independence we'd
have as a private club worthwhile. But it's no picnic. Our election law is
600 pages long, and full of pitfalls for a novice party organization.

Steve
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kirit" <kamva@allvantage.com>
To: <pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 8:11 PM
Subject: [Pnp-wg] Counting Greens


> Jeff Peterson has made some good points.
>
> Until we grapple with the issue of counting Greens in differing state
> situations it is impossible to evaluate any of the proposals other than
> Greg's which is purely population based.
>
>
> Peace,
>
> Kirit
>
> On 02/27/2005 05:50 PM, Jeff Peterson wrote:
> > Forrest (and all),
> >
> > I appreciate your continued efforts to discuss our differences in a
> > civil manner. Thanks! I think we're coming closer to some understanding
> > on this delegate apportionment issue, though we're by no means there
yet.
> >
> > The problem is that we have only a limited number of ways to assess any
> > state's Green Party strength. And when we're trying to come up with a
> > way that allows us to compare one state with another, our choices are
> > more limited still.
> >
> > There are only two numbers that are available for all states: total
> > population and Green Party membership, by which I mean not voter
> > registration, but dues-paying (or not) folks who have filled out a
> > membership form to join the party. (Perhaps I'm going out on a limb
> > here, but I'm assuming every affiliated state has such a form.) I am
> > aware of and appreciate the arguments that using either one of these
> > alone might skew the allocation of delegates one way or another.
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>