Monday, July 10, 2006
Yer last chance!
OK, you're an active member of the Green Party, right? You want your voice, and your state's voice, to be heard, right? Will that happen? The Delegate Apportionment Committee is responsible for deciding what is the proper balance of delegates from the various states.
Should each state get delegates based only on population?
Should each state get delegates based only on Green Party membership?
Should other factors enter in? If so, which? Number of candidates run? Number of local chapters? Number of Federal candidates? Number of local candidates? Number of partisan races entered? Number of elected officials? How do we account for those states which don't have effective access to the ballot in that there are few non-partisan races and ballot access is so very hard? How about those states where the Greens have not run many campaigns, but hold educational and outreach based work regularly? Is any credit due to Greens who lobby, or do national committee work? Should a small state who's members are exceptionally successful at building coalitions and serving the Greens in that way get more representation as a result?
Got an opinion? Do two things then. First, go to the Delegate Survey at GP.org, and either fill it out there, or copy it and mail it from your email system.
If you do the latter, you will want to send your opinions to Cat Woods, and also send a copy to Greg Gerritt, and finally, send your opinions to Dean Meyerson.
This is important enough that I am going to copy and paste the survey here. It won't work here, you'll have to send the emails individually, or answer via the link above to the GP.org website survey. This is, as the title says, your last chance to get your opinion out to the committee.
Survey Text
A. Minimum Delegation Threshold:
The GPUS has adopted a minimum threshold of 2 delegates on the NC from each state to ensure that all accredited states are represented in our national governing body. Currently there are 44 accreditation states and two caucuses (1 delegate each) with representation on the NC. The number of delegates on the NC is 120 and the number of delegates designated each state based only on the minimum threshold is 90 (44 x 2 + 2).
This means that the minimum threshold of delegates allocated to each state accounts for 75% of the NC and the delegates allocated to each state using some measure of proportional strength accounts for 25% of the NC.
1. Do you believe that a higher percentage of delegates should be chosen based on some measure of proportional strength?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don't Know
2. What percentage of the delegates to the NC should be allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength?
_____%
3. To increase the percentage of delegates allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength would you support lowering the minimum delegate threshold to 1 per state or increasing the size of the NC?
__ Lower the Minimum Delegate Threshold to 1
__ Increase the size of the NC
__ Both
__ Neither
4. Would you consider changing to a regional allocation of
delegates in order to improve both the proportionality of
delegate allocation and the proportional representation
within that delegation (for example, to facilitate racial
balance as well as gender balance on delegations)?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don't Know
B. Proxy or Weighted Voting:
One way to increase proportionality without increasing the NC is through weighted or proxy voting, which would allow states to have more votes than delegates. For example a state that currently has 5 delegates could be given 7 votes based on some measure of proportional strength. In this case, the each delegate for that state would cast 1.4 votes during any decision making process.
1. What do you think of weighted or proxy voting, where a
state gets more votes than the number of delegates it has?
__Support
__Do Not Support
__Don't Know
2. If you favor weighted voting, is that just for in-person
meetings, or for the listserv as well?
__ In-person meetings only (e.g a national convention)
__ On-line Voting only
__ Both
__ Neither
3. If you would accept weighted voting, what is the maximum
number of votes you would accept one delegate casting?
(e.g., 2.0, 3.5, no limit).
______
C. Fractional Voting:
A similar method of increasing proportionality is through fractional voting. By splitting a single vote into fractions, a state is better represent minority views, especially with small delegations, in proportion to the support for that view. For example, a state might have 2 votes to cast, but could cast 1.5 yes and 0.5 no in order to reflect a 3:1 split in opinion.
1. Would you consider allowing states to use fractional voting, if it didn't affect overall vote proportionality?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don't Know
2. If yes, would you consider separating the number of state delegates from the number of votes allotted to that state?
(For example, a state with three votes might have six delegates. This might increase participation at the national level.)
__ Yes
__ No
3. If yes on #1, is there a limit to how small you think a vote can be split (e.g., 1/2 vote, 1/4 vote, etc.)?
D. Determining Proportional Strength:
One way to determine the proportion strength of the Green Party in each state is to use several criteria to estimate membership size and then take an average value of those criteria. The list of possible criteria currently being discussed by the DAC is included in question 2 below.
1. Would you favor allowing states to choose a subset of criteria from the larger list that best fits the conditions, laws, and bylaws of their state party, or do you think every state should use the same set of criteria?
__ Subset of Criteria
__ Same Criteria
2. Below is a list of possible criteria we could use to allow states to determine their proportional strength relative to other states. Please check all criteria that you think would be appropriate to use as a measure of proportional strength.
__ Number of registered Green voters
__ Green membership rolls (for non-registration states)
__ Number of elected Greens
__ Number of Green candidates that have run for office (any)
__ Total number of Greens running for statewide and federal office (partisan races)
__ Maximum number of votes cast for a single Green candidate
__ Total number of votes cast for all Green candidates in the state
__ Total number of votes cast for Greens candidates for local office
__ Total number of votes for David Cobb
__ Total number of votes for Ralph Nader (2004)
__ Total number of votes for David Cobb and Ralph Nader combined
__ State population size
other 1______________________
other 2______________________
other 3______________________
other 4______________________
other 5______________________
3. If you favored allowing states to use a subset of criteria in question 1, what number of the criteria that you approved in the question above is the appropriate number of criteria states should choose from that list?
_______
4. If a method for determining the proportional strength of each state is adopted that is based on some calculations of Green accomplishment how often do you think the NC numbers should be recalculated based on new elections?
__Every year
__Every 2 years
__Every 4 years
Should each state get delegates based only on population?
Should each state get delegates based only on Green Party membership?
Should other factors enter in? If so, which? Number of candidates run? Number of local chapters? Number of Federal candidates? Number of local candidates? Number of partisan races entered? Number of elected officials? How do we account for those states which don't have effective access to the ballot in that there are few non-partisan races and ballot access is so very hard? How about those states where the Greens have not run many campaigns, but hold educational and outreach based work regularly? Is any credit due to Greens who lobby, or do national committee work? Should a small state who's members are exceptionally successful at building coalitions and serving the Greens in that way get more representation as a result?
Got an opinion? Do two things then. First, go to the Delegate Survey at GP.org, and either fill it out there, or copy it and mail it from your email system.
If you do the latter, you will want to send your opinions to Cat Woods, and also send a copy to Greg Gerritt, and finally, send your opinions to Dean Meyerson.
This is important enough that I am going to copy and paste the survey here. It won't work here, you'll have to send the emails individually, or answer via the link above to the GP.org website survey. This is, as the title says, your last chance to get your opinion out to the committee.
Survey Text
A. Minimum Delegation Threshold:
The GPUS has adopted a minimum threshold of 2 delegates on the NC from each state to ensure that all accredited states are represented in our national governing body. Currently there are 44 accreditation states and two caucuses (1 delegate each) with representation on the NC. The number of delegates on the NC is 120 and the number of delegates designated each state based only on the minimum threshold is 90 (44 x 2 + 2).
This means that the minimum threshold of delegates allocated to each state accounts for 75% of the NC and the delegates allocated to each state using some measure of proportional strength accounts for 25% of the NC.
1. Do you believe that a higher percentage of delegates should be chosen based on some measure of proportional strength?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don't Know
2. What percentage of the delegates to the NC should be allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength?
_____%
3. To increase the percentage of delegates allocated to each state based on some measure of proportional strength would you support lowering the minimum delegate threshold to 1 per state or increasing the size of the NC?
__ Lower the Minimum Delegate Threshold to 1
__ Increase the size of the NC
__ Both
__ Neither
4. Would you consider changing to a regional allocation of
delegates in order to improve both the proportionality of
delegate allocation and the proportional representation
within that delegation (for example, to facilitate racial
balance as well as gender balance on delegations)?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don't Know
B. Proxy or Weighted Voting:
One way to increase proportionality without increasing the NC is through weighted or proxy voting, which would allow states to have more votes than delegates. For example a state that currently has 5 delegates could be given 7 votes based on some measure of proportional strength. In this case, the each delegate for that state would cast 1.4 votes during any decision making process.
1. What do you think of weighted or proxy voting, where a
state gets more votes than the number of delegates it has?
__Support
__Do Not Support
__Don't Know
2. If you favor weighted voting, is that just for in-person
meetings, or for the listserv as well?
__ In-person meetings only (e.g a national convention)
__ On-line Voting only
__ Both
__ Neither
3. If you would accept weighted voting, what is the maximum
number of votes you would accept one delegate casting?
(e.g., 2.0, 3.5, no limit).
______
C. Fractional Voting:
A similar method of increasing proportionality is through fractional voting. By splitting a single vote into fractions, a state is better represent minority views, especially with small delegations, in proportion to the support for that view. For example, a state might have 2 votes to cast, but could cast 1.5 yes and 0.5 no in order to reflect a 3:1 split in opinion.
1. Would you consider allowing states to use fractional voting, if it didn't affect overall vote proportionality?
__ Yes
__ No
__ Don't Know
2. If yes, would you consider separating the number of state delegates from the number of votes allotted to that state?
(For example, a state with three votes might have six delegates. This might increase participation at the national level.)
__ Yes
__ No
3. If yes on #1, is there a limit to how small you think a vote can be split (e.g., 1/2 vote, 1/4 vote, etc.)?
D. Determining Proportional Strength:
One way to determine the proportion strength of the Green Party in each state is to use several criteria to estimate membership size and then take an average value of those criteria. The list of possible criteria currently being discussed by the DAC is included in question 2 below.
1. Would you favor allowing states to choose a subset of criteria from the larger list that best fits the conditions, laws, and bylaws of their state party, or do you think every state should use the same set of criteria?
__ Subset of Criteria
__ Same Criteria
2. Below is a list of possible criteria we could use to allow states to determine their proportional strength relative to other states. Please check all criteria that you think would be appropriate to use as a measure of proportional strength.
__ Number of registered Green voters
__ Green membership rolls (for non-registration states)
__ Number of elected Greens
__ Number of Green candidates that have run for office (any)
__ Total number of Greens running for statewide and federal office (partisan races)
__ Maximum number of votes cast for a single Green candidate
__ Total number of votes cast for all Green candidates in the state
__ Total number of votes cast for Greens candidates for local office
__ Total number of votes for David Cobb
__ Total number of votes for Ralph Nader (2004)
__ Total number of votes for David Cobb and Ralph Nader combined
__ State population size
other 1______________________
other 2______________________
other 3______________________
other 4______________________
other 5______________________
3. If you favored allowing states to use a subset of criteria in question 1, what number of the criteria that you approved in the question above is the appropriate number of criteria states should choose from that list?
_______
4. If a method for determining the proportional strength of each state is adopted that is based on some calculations of Green accomplishment how often do you think the NC numbers should be recalculated based on new elections?
__Every year
__Every 2 years
__Every 4 years
// posted by Gregg Jocoy @ 2:34 PM 
