GPUS discussion Re: [External Relations] FW: [BRPP] represntation

[David Rolde]

I don't think this is the right email list for discussions about GPUS 
issues.  At one of the summer GRP state committee meetings, we 
decided to set up a new GRP committee to deal with GPUS issues.  It 
is true that the new committee hasn't been convened yet. But 
nevertheless I think it is clear that the External Relations 
Committee (which also has not convened yet) is not going to deal with 
GPUS issues. Therefore I don't believe that people who are interested 
in GPUS issues would have subscribed to this Outreach/External 
Relations Com email list.  I believe that discussion about GPUS 
issues should take place on the statecom or statecom discuss email 
lists until a new email list is created for these discussions.

- David

At 12:53 PM -0400 10/14/04, Owen Broadhurst wrote:
>Greg Gerritt is floating a trial balloon with regards to state 
>representation on the GPUS CC. For some odd reason, I don't find 
>myself favoring his suggestion- but can't quite put my finger on why.
>
>What may folks here think? Any suggestions I should run by the BRPP?
>
>Keep in mind: This is a trial balloon for internal BRPP discussion only.
>
>Nothing set in stone as any proposal yet, nor has there been any 
>determination that BRPP should make any proposal regarding this. 
>Seems more like a brainstorming session.
>
>OB
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: Greg Gerritt <gerritt at mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: brpp at gp-us.org
>To: BRPP list <brpp at gp-us.org>
>Subject: [BRPP] represntation
>Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:41:31 -0400
>
>Trial balloon
>
>Representation on the CC should begin with 100 delegates divided up with a
>delegation for each state based on their percentage of the population.  1
>percent, one delegate, 10 percent 10 delegates.  Half the states will get
>zero delgates using this formula.  The second 102 delegates can be based on
>two for each state.  Total of 202 delegates.  current model is based on no
>more than 150 delegates without setting an actual number.
>
>Populations approximate and possibly wrong, but irrelevant.
>
>Examples  RI 1 million people, less than 1 percent of the US  population 2
>delegates.
>California  36 million people 13% of US population  15 delgates
>Texas  20 million  8 percent of US population  10 delegates
>Michigan  10 million  3% of US population 5 delegates
>
>Currently in 110 or so delegates CA has 13, which is almost exactly their
>percentage of the population.  RI and all the other small population states
>are over represented, but if we have a floor of two seats per state, unless
>we have 800 delegates they will not even be allocated one.  Our floor ought
>to be two so as to have some diversity in delegations.
>
>Currently the underrepresented states are mid sized such as IL, WI, GA, etc.
>
>Thoughts?  greg
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>BRPP mailing list
>BRPP at gp-us.org
>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/brpp
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>outreach mailing list
>outreach at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/outreach