[Pnp-wg] Essay proving need for membership-based apportionment
Elizabeth Arnone
elizarnone@comcast.net
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:47:33 -0600
Greg, I'm always amazed how some people contort what Nader says. I have
been to many Nader talks and watched him on TV and at press conferences, and
there was never even a hint that indicated he hated the Green Party. He
always spoke very highly of the Greens. At most he identified areas that
needed improvement to which I agree then and now. So, it makes my hair
stand up see you say such a thing.
Liz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Essay proving need for membership-based apportionment
> We had a turnout of 20% of registered Greens which was more than either of
> the Parties that held primaries that day. And we expected to lose ballot
> status no matter who the Green nominee was in 29004. I guarantee that RI
> would have lost ballot status with Nader as well. As would every other
> state that lost ballot status.
>
> The Green Party does have to adapt to circumstances, and in 2004 the
> circumstances were that no matter wwho we nominated it was going to be a
> hard year presidentially. So i am glad we nominated a candidate who
boosted
> the local candidates. Our local candidates did just fine including the
> highest percentage for a state senate candidate in the country. Which is
> really why we are just fine.
>
> As fopr nader, When we held ourt state convention in the spring the only
> person in the room who wnated to work for Nader was a Reform party menber
> who occcassionally comes to our meetings. So Nader had no grassroots
Green
> support in rI, and he made it worse every time he came to RI by telling
the
> Green par5ty how much he disliked it.
>
> A a human being with a little self respect why shold I work with a
candidate
> who tells me he hates my party? greg
>
> > From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> > Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:32:17 -0500
> > To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Essay proving need for membership-based
apportionment
> >
> > You think that's funny? I'll tell you something funny. In 2004, the
State of
> > Rhode Island reports that a whopping 134 people turned out for the Green
> > Party Presidential primary. We did better than that just in New Paltz
when
> > we held elections for county committee.
> >
> > And then you did so well on Election Day that you lost ballot status.
> > Congratulations. Your Rhode Island theories have a great party-building
> > track record.
> >
> > Steve
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Greg Gerritt" <gerritt@mindspring.com>
> > To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 10:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Essay proving need for membership-based
apportionment
> >
> >
> >> I reread this, I do not read these as an indictmentment on population
> > based
> >> sytems of representation. I am being humorous here, but it is also
> > possible
> >> to read them as saying do not get involved with NY, as it seems almost
> >> every disaster had some NY element in it. greg gpri
> >>
> >>> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> >>> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:51:43 -0500
> >>> To: "Elizabeth Arnone" <elizarnone@comcast.net>, <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Essay proving need for membership-based
> > apportionment
> >>>
> >>> I'll summarize. The point of the essays below is that no ideological
or
> >>> movement-based party in US history, none with zero exceptions, has
> > survived
> >>> a general population-based representation system more than 2
> > presidential
> >>> election cycles. There is no way to overstate the importance of
> >>> understanding this.
> >>>
> >>> The Green Party is already almost dead as a consequence of using such
a
> >>> model. We fell from first to fourth among alternative parties in just
> > one
> >>> election cycle. Our membership within the total of all registered
voters
> >>> fell for the first time in Green Party history. We lost 14 ballot
lines,
> >>> which will prevent other Green candidates in all those states from
being
> >>> able to run, and require all kinds of resources to restore in the
coming
> >>> years that we no longer have. These are facts, not speculation.
> >>>
> >>> Surely you can't be proposing that we continue down this road.
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Elizabeth Arnone" <elizarnone@comcast.net>
> >>> To: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>; <>
> >>> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 6:36 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Essay proving need for membership-based
> > apportionment
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Too much information to digest. I'm not a historian and this kind of
> >>> stuff
> >>>> puts me to sleep. Sorry, no offence intended.
> >>>>
> >>>> The quandry with 1 member - 1 vote is how do you get each member to
> > vote?
> >>>> It would be ideal if it was doable.
> >>>>
> >>>> The only way I see that happening is by individual state conventions
> > where
> >>>> voting would take place, be counted and then delegates selected based
> > on
> >>> the
> >>>> outcomes.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, if that were the case, we probably wouldn't need delegates.
> > Each
> >>>> state could report their outcomes to the GPUS and GPUS would make the
> >>> final
> >>>> tally by ranking.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, in essence, we could have a national convention where candidates
> > would
> >>>> make their pitch and then go back to our states and hold statewide
> >>>> conventions for voting.
> >>>>
> >>>> A little far out but I don't see why not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Liz Arnone - NJ
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
> >>>> To: <Pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:38 AM
> >>>> Subject: [Pnp-wg] Essay proving need for membership-based
apportionment
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The following was authored by Mark Lause, an historian and college
> >>> professor
> >>>> in Cincinnati, Ohio, and condenses information he uncovered while
> >>>> researching a book. It is reproduced here with permission. It is my
> > hope
> >>>> that this information will help lead to a better understanding of why
> >>>> general-population based models bode poorly for the hope of a
> > meaningful
> >>>> future for the Green Party. The main essay is followed by a brief Q &
A
> >>> with
> >>>> Mark explaining the source material that led to these conclusions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve Greenfield, New York.
> >>>>
> >>>> Time for a little review of third party history....Bear with me,
> >>>> please...I'll try to make some interesting long stories as
bloodlessly
> >>>> concise as possible...
> >>>>
> >>>> Start right after the Republicans, a successful third party....
> >>>>
> >>>> In 1871, the National Labor Union voted to organize a National Labor
> >>> Reform
> >>>> Party. There were some areas that were very well organized, but they
> >>> wanted
> >>>> a national party. They were convinced that more populous states
should
> >>> get
> >>>> larger delegations at the 1872 nominating convention. Like the major
> >>>> parties, they wanted the core delegations to be based on population,
> > like
> >>>> the Congress. This meant that the states that didn't have that many
> > labor
> >>>> organizations were represented out of all proportion to their
strength
> > in
> >>>> the movement. In fact, the weighed delegations were pretty much
> > present
> >>> to
> >>>> get the convention to nominate a progressive Democrat. The idea was
> > that,
> >>>> with that kind of backing, one of the Democratic contenders would get
a
> >>> real
> >>>> boost when that party's convention met. There were some who argued
> > that
> >>>> doing this was the way to reach the bigger numbers, recruit, and
> > establish
> >>> a
> >>>> real base for a new party. Can you guess how well that turned out?
> >>> Anyone
> >>>> wonder how long the National Labor Reform Party lasted?
> >>>>
> >>>> Four years later, the farmers' organizations were pressing hard for
> >>> railroad
> >>>> regulation and bipartisan opposition created major third party
> >>>> movements, especially in Illinois and Indiana. These two parties
> > decided
> >>> to
> >>>> cooperate in 1874-75 and launch a National or Independent
> >>>> Party. As with the earlier National Labor Reform Party, they decided
> > to
> >>>> structure representation just like the major parties...which meant
that
> > a
> >>>> state that didn't have a movement would somehow get a delegation
> >>>> representing its population and that they'd have voice and voice
right
> >>>> alongside delegates from states that did have a movement. Sound
> >>> democratic?
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, these representatives of the farmers' movement in 1876 were
> >>>> particularly interested in getting the labor organizations to vote
with
> >>>> them, so they were particularly eager to listen to the New York
> > delegation
> >>>> which promised to deliver the labor vote in that state. In fact, the
> >>>> convention essentially deferred to them over the presidential
> > nomination.
> >>>> Turns out the leading New York delegates were William A.A. Carsey and
> >>>> Sanford Church from--can you guess?--Tammany and related tigers.
They
> > got
> >>>> the nomination for Peter Cooper, an aged old Jacksonian Democrat
little
> >>>> known in the areas that had real third party movements. Better still,
> > they
> >>>> also arranged the
> >>>> nomination of a Democratic Senator for vice-president, later replaced
> > by
> >>>> Samuel F. Cary of the Ohio Democratic machine. Programmatically,
they
> >>>> convinced the convention to adopt the call for paper currency under a
> >>>> formula endorsed (but then being abandoned) by the Democratic Party.
> > So,
> >>>> they became "Greenbackers."
> >>>>
> >>>> 1880 was an odd case. The Greenback-Labor Party pulled together a
> > broader
> >>>> spectrum of the progressive forces in the country than its
> >>>> predecessors. Even the socialists were on board. The best
explanation
> >>> for
> >>>> this was that the convention basically decided to represent the
> >>>> movement rather stick to Congressional districts. That convention
> > voted
> >>>> down proposals to nominate Democratic shills and went with a genuine
> >>>> independent for president, James B. Weaver. Most importantly, Weaver
> >>> would
> >>>> up trying to confront the Republican sellout of Reconstruction and
the
> >>>> campaign was alternately assailed and ignored in the national press,
> >>> largely
> >>>> owing to the ruthlessness of the Democratic Party, which felt it had
a
> >>>> chance to win were it not for these third party SOBs. And, of
course,
> > the
> >>>> party of slavery and white supremacism race-baited the third party
> >>> movement
> >>>> mercilessly.
> >>>>
> >>>> In preparation for 1884, the Democrats (again out of New York)
arranged
> >>> the
> >>>> launching of a different third party, the National Anti-Monopolist
> > Party
> >>> and
> >>>> arranged for its nomination of Benjamin Butler, a Democrat (usually)
> > from
> >>>> Massachusetts. It turned out later, that Butler's campaign was an
> >>> elaborate
> >>>> ploy to divide the votes that might be cast against the Republicans,
> > but
> >>> he
> >>>> also seems to have been funded by the Democrats. Much of what he
said
> > was
> >>>> very positive and progressive, but his well-heeled operation pretty
> > much
> >>>> superseded the real third party movement.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, but how they arranged this? They simply persuaded the third
party
> >>>> movement that, in order to be taken seriously as a national
> >>>> organization, it ought to structure its delegations like the major
> >>> parties,
> >>>> so that as many states as possible could be represented. This,
> >>>> of course, meant that places where there wasn't really a third party
> >>>> movement were represented by delegations that would represent...
well,
> > who
> >>>> do you think?
> >>>>
> >>>> Then there was 1888...but, you know, the lesson's so clear that I
> > really
> >>>> don't think it's necessary to recite these annals of misdirection
much
> >>>> further.
> >>>>
> >>>> Representing third party voters is certainly a step better, but
> > proponents
> >>>> of this seem to miss the point I keep trying to make--that there's
not
> >>>> necessarily a connection between those voters and the delegation
> > claiming
> >>> to
> >>>> represent them. There is no party organization here (ed. note: Mark
is
> >>>> referring to the Ohio Green Party), so there was no discussion and no
> >>>> election of delegates. Yet, we had "representatives" in Milwaukee
> > going
> >>>> 100% for Cobb and safe states....
> >>>>
> >>>> What should be represented at the conventions are members. There are
> >>>> several different ways to define that, but it should be
flesh-and-blood
> >>>> people who are actually connected to the process that claims to
> > represent
> >>>> them. Anything else is an opening through which the enemies of
> > insurgent
> >>>> politics have always poured....
> >>>>
> >>>> One member=one vote!
> >>>> Mark L.
> >>>> --------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Additional comments by the author, Mark Lause, and source references.
> >>>>
> >>>> I encountered the material while researching what became "The Civil
> > War's
> >>>> Last Campaign: James B. Weaver, the National Greenback-Labor Party &
> > the
> >>>> Politics of Race and Section" on the 1880 third party movement.
> >>>>
> >>>> The importance of the representation issue leaped out of the
published
> >>>> proceedings and accounts of the national conventions mentioned...
> >>>>
> >>>> 1872: The National Labor Reform Party nominated David Davis, who
> > declined,
> >>>> leaving the Democratic shills in the NLRP to change the
> >>>> convention's nomination to Charles O'Connor, the New York Copperhead.
> >>>> Representation of Democratic delegations from non-insurgent states
was
> >>>> essential to both the nomination and the establishment of a standing
> >>>> committee authorized to nominate someone else without a new
convention.
> >>>> "Official Proceedings of the National Labor Reform Convention Held at
> >>>> Columbus, Feb. 21 & 22, 1872," Workingman's Advocate, March 2, 9,
1872.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1876. National or Independent or Greenback Party nominated Peter
Cooper
> > of
> >>>> Cooper Union fame in NYC rather than a leader of one of the real
> > farmers'
> >>>> parties in the Midwest. They wanted desperately to involve eastern
> > labor
> >>>> organizations and seated Tammany Hall Democrats (not identified as
> > such)
> >>> to
> >>>> speak on behalf of the workers, and even let them make the national
> >>>> nominations in hope of establishing a truly national third party. A
> > brief
> >>>> look at the New York Times identified these labor spokesmen as
Tammany
> >>> men.
> >>>> "Rah for Rags" and "Base and Bottomless" Chicago Daily Times (both p.
> > 3),
> >>>> May 18, 19, 1876; "The Greenback Party," "The Greenbackers," and "The
> >>>> Greenback Party," Chicago Daily Interocean, May 17, 18, 19, 1876, all
> > p.
> >>> 5.
> >>>> For the most complete and favorable coverage, see "Independents" in
> >>>> Buchanan's paper, the Indianapolis Sun, May 20, 1876, pp. 1-2, 5,
with
> >>>> editorial on p. 3.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1880. Greenback-Labor nominated James B. Weaver, a real insurgent.
In
> >>> part,
> >>>> this success reflected the decision to counterbalance the
> >>>> formalistically determined state delegations by admitting bloc
> >>>> representation by organizations like the Union Greenback clubs and
the
> >>>> Socialistic Labor Party. The convention was covered in great detail
in
> >>> the
> >>>> Chicago press--the Chicago Daily Interocean, Chicago Times, and
Chicago
> >>>> Tribune, June 9, 10, 11, and 12 1880. For movement coverage, see
NYC's
> >>>> Irish World, June 26, 1880, p. 1, and the Winamac [IN] Greenback
> > Journal,
> >>>> July 17, 1880.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1884: The National Antimonopolist Party that nominated Ben Butler was
> >>>> launched by the National Antimonopoly League, essentially NYC
> >>> manufacturers
> >>>> interested in railroad regulation for their own purposes; they moved
to
> >>>> start a national third party in 1883 in order to nominate reform
> > Democrat
> >>>> Ben Butler and suck the remnants of the Greenbackers into his
campaign.
> >>>> Butler himself acknowledged that his campaign was being funded by
> > factions
> >>>> of the major parties. Mark W. Summers covers the Butler campaign in
> > his
> >>>> _Rum, Romanism, & Rebellion: the Making of a president, 1884_.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1884: Based on their earlier successes, all sorts of factions were
> > funding
> >>>> and fielding third parties, along with some real, very confused
> >>>> insurgents. The hard core Greenbackers and Antimonopolists
reorganized
> > as
> >>>> the Union Labor Party, but their unwillingness to restrict
> >>>> representation to the movement resulted in the nomination of A.J.
> >>> Streeter,
> >>>> not a bad fellow but a supporter of the Democrats who made a grand
> > total
> >>> of
> >>>> one campaign speech that I could find. The United Labor Party of the
> >>> Henry
> >>>> George movement split three ways as George himself crawled back to
the
> >>>> Democrats, and others sustained the ULP around the nomination of
Robert
> > F.
> >>>> Cowderey, apparently in an effort to reduce the votes of the Union
> > Labor
> >>>> ticket, while yet another faction went to the Republicans. All of
this
> >>> was
> >>>> possible by fudging the representation to give undue weight to states
> >>>> without reference to members in preference to those that did have
lots
> > of
> >>>> members. (This same year, some women suffragists ran Belva A.
Lockwood
> > on
> >>>> the Equal Rights ticket, and the Socialist Labor Party ran its own
late
> > of
> >>>> presidential electors pledged to vote "No President" in the Electoral
> >>>> College.)
> >>>>
> >>>> 1892 and 1896: Then, there were, as you say, the Populists...which
died
> > at
> >>>> the hands of the Democrats as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> This pattern doesn't suggest any great, long standing conspiracy
among
> >>>> Democrats to treat third parties in this way. Rather, these
tendencies
> >>> are
> >>>> built into the political eco-system. There are always some genuine
> >>> radicals
> >>>> wanting to pull the Democrats left and some genuine Democrats wanting
> > to
> >>>> pull their party left. Both can easily see third party protest votes
> > as a
> >>>> tactic to get what they want. However, whatever they build, they
hope
> > to
> >>>> put up for sale.
> >>>>
> >>>> Before us, we have a succession of third parties that have largely
> >>> destroyed
> >>>> themselves by the same mechanism. It would be the smart thing for us
> > to
> >>>> avoid it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Solidarity! Mark L.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pnp-wg mailing list
> Pnp-wg@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/pnp-wg
>