[External Relations] Convention Delegation Size: the Hill Analysis and My Comments

[Owen Broadhurst]

The Hill Analysis is here:

http://www.greensfornader.net/Convention_Analysis.pdf

===============

My belief is that the Hill analysis is generally correct regarding 
specifically how convention delegation size is determined. I find myself in 
agreement with most of Mr. Hill's arguments specific to convention delegate 
size determination. I, too, believe that Electoral College delegation within 
a state, and CC delegation size dependant on only the amount of 
Congressional districts within a state, can in no way reflect the true size 
of any state Green party. I, too, believe these should in no way help 
determine the size of any state's convention delegation. That's just not 
democratic.

However, where Mr. Hill disparages "voting strength" assessment, I believe a 
"voting strength" assessment is necessary to help in determining covention 
delegation size since "soft support" is perhaps our best means of 
determining state party success beyond registration- and we clearly need 
means beyond registration in the determination of state party membership in 
order to help ensure that state party sentiments beyond only the very 
largest are given weight at the convention.

Mr. Hill's proposed remedy fails in that he would have delegation size 
determined as a percentage of total nationwide party registrants. This fails 
in that the total amount of state Green party nationwide cannot be 
determined by the total amount of registrants. To assign a small percentage 
of total amount of registrants to state party delegations from states with 
Draconian election laws does not allow for determination of their true size 
or true "soft support" within that state.

What I would propose instead as the basic determinant of convention 
delegation size is state party membership. Where states allow for members as 
registrants, I believe it is appropriate to simply use amount of state Green 
party registrants to determine state membership size. In states with 
Draconian election laws, we should allow the state parties themselves to 
provide us with these numbers. Given how such states must tally dues-paying 
membership and/ or party local membership for their very own internal 
purposes, I suggest that we place faith in the state party database.

Determination of delegation size on party rolls alone, however, does 
unfairly discriminate against state parties hampered by Draconian election 
laws. State with ease of party registration offer state parties advantages 
that other state parties lack in ease of party recruitment. Draconian 
election laws hamper party recruitment efforts. Therefore, "soft support" as 
in "voting strength" should be used to help in the determination of 
convention delegation size, although Mr. Hill disparages this.

The Libertarian Party uses the following formula:


Affiliate Party Delegate Entitlements:

Each affiliate party shall be entitled to send delegates to each Regular 
Convention on the following basis:


One delegate for each 0.1 percent, or fraction thereof, of the total Party 
membership in that affiliate; provided that at least one such delegate must 
be a resident of that State or District.


One delegate for each 0.25 percent, or fraction thereof, of the votes cast 
nationwide for the Libertarian Party candidate in the most recent 
presidential election, cast in that affiliate's state.

Sincerely yours,
Owen R. Broadhurst