[External Relations] Re: [statecom] Convention Delegation Size: the Hill Analysis and MyComments

[Aimee Smith]

Owen,
My only concern with your suggestion is we are supposed to be a
movement/party. Some states will more havily focus on movement
over party than others.  This kind of "weighting" preferences states
who do massive voter reg, but don't necessarily include people in
locals or other active ways.  This kind of weighting may be legitimate
for a presidential primary because that is itself an electoral contest, but
I do fear that some of the thinking in parties that lean the other
way could be useful in having a voice even there.  And certainly when
it comes to weighting on representation on the GPUS coordinating
committee...

this feeds into our discussion of different growth models for locals
at the last statecom.
Do we want parties to prioritize voter reg?
Will that emphesis undercut our values in the long run?
I agree this leaves us with "fuzzy" math to gauge fuzzy
things, but somehow there should be acknowledgement
of the harmony of goals of our party/movement...
The Libertarian party DOES emphesize voter reg, so
this isn't a problem for them.

How to caluculate the incalculables...

Aimee

----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Broadhurst" <thersites2467 at hotmail.com>
To: <outreach at green-rainbow.org>; <statecom at green-rainbow.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:27 PM
Subject: [statecom] Convention Delegation Size: the Hill Analysis and
MyComments


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> StateCom mailing list
> StateCom at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom