Thursday, February 15, 2007

Delegation size

The entire Green National Committee has been involved in a discussion of what formula would best represent the membership of the Green Party.

What does seem to be, at least in part, at the core of the debate is the question of how David Cobb secured the nomination in 2004. I wrote here when the Delegate Allocation Committee began it's work that the time had arrived for those who want to control the outcome of the nominating convention to get themselves involved. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that David Cobb had more supporters in positions of authority inside the Green Party, including on delegate allocation, accreditation and other procedural committees than those who supported Ralph Nader.

It is equally clear that Ralph Nader was not going to seek our nomination, and that alone rendered his campaign moot for many state Green Parties. The fact that Peter Camejo, serving as stand-in for Nader, won a huge majority of the California primary vote was in essence ignored by the party, and the votes of California Greens was thereby diminished.

I agree with that assessment, but think we must also consider the reverse. What if Camejo had won the party nomination exclusively because of the results of the California primary and votes he secured in primaries or conventions in other states? If he had won the nomination, and then refused to use the ballot to campaign, choosing to be Nader's #2 instead, what would that have done to the party? Does it make sense to put the destiny of the party's Presidential campaign in the hands of a person not clearly committed to running a Green Party campaign. I can assure you that it would generate some anger here in South Carolina.

So, what I have done is take the number 100 out of thin air. That is the number of delegates I propose we use. Based on that figure, and the proposal that every affiliated state is represented, how would you balance the delegate count? To see my delegate count, look behind the "Read more! link, and hey, why not share your own delegate mix that you think would be fair?



AL - Currently 2 Change to 1
AK - Currently 2 Charge to 1
AZ - Currently 2 Change to 1
AR - Currently 2 Change to 1
BC - Currently 1 Change to 0
CA - Currently 13 Change to 16
CO - Currently 2 Leave at 2
CT - Currently 2 Change to 1
DE - Currently 2 Change to 1
DC - Currently 2 Change to 3
FL - Currently 6 Change to 4
GA - Currently 2 Change to 1
HI - Currently 2 Change to 1
ID - Currently 2 Change to 1
IL - Currently 6 Change to 5
IN - Currently 2 Change to 1
IA - Currently 2 Change to 1
KS - Currently 2 Change to 1
LC - Currently 1 Change to 0
LA - Currently 2 Change to 1
ME - Currently 2 Change to 3
MD - Currently 2 Change to 1
MA - Currently 3 Change to 2
MI - Currently 4 Leave at 4
MN - Currently 2 Change to 3
MS - Currently 2 Change to 1
MO - Currently 2 Change to 1
NE - Currently 2 Change to 1
NV - Currently 2 Change to 1
NJ - Currently 3 Change to 2
NM - Currently 2 Change to 1
NY - Currently 7 Change to 9
NC - Currently 3 Change to 1
OH - Currently 4 Change to 2
OK - Currently 2 Change to 1
OR - Currently 2 Leave at 2
PA - Currently 5 Change to 4
RI - Currently 2 Change to 1
SC - Currently 2 Change to 1
TN - Currently 2 Change to 1
TX - Currently 8 Change to 5
UT - Currently 2 Change to 1
VT - Currently 2 Change to 1
VA - Currently 3 Change to 2
WA - Currently 2 Leave at 2
WI - Currently 2 Change to 3
WC - Currently 1 Change to 0
WY - Currently 2 Change to 1

Total - 100 delegates


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Comments:
I assume you're using the proportions, more or less, from the current proposal. Your changes seem like an all-around improvement (change minimum delegation from 2 to 1, caucuses to 0, total reduced to 100).

I like it. But would it garner more votes? TX seems to be voting no because their representation is reduced, which remains the case here (as it ought to).
 
Hey Jonathan. Sorry it took so long to reply.

I actually took the list of states delegation sizes and committee assignments and "rewarded" those states I knew had something to offer the rest of us as represented by the number of committees they had members on. For example, since DC has so many people on the various committees, I "rewarded" them with another delegate, because I think all of us would be better off if there were more DC folks in on the conversation.

Likewise, I "rewarded" those states who have been sucessful in electoral efforts, at least as far as I can remember. I did not look at actual numbers, which would likely make my outcome much better, but that is why, for example, I gave more delegates to Maine and PA. Likewise MN. I figure that these folks have proven success at getting folks elected. I need to know what they know!

Finally, I looked at the success of CA and NY, and frankly at the fact that CA has felt under-represented for some time, and alloted them more delegates until the total came to 100. This is totally arbritrary, but I truly believe that we must find a way, any way to settle this.

Here is my proposal. Set a figure, say 100 as I did, and ask each state steering committee or other authorized group of Greens to say how many of these delegates they want. Add them all up and see how close we are to 100, and try negotiating to a figure we all can live with.

Every state with more than one delegate should be required to offer a gender balanced delegation, and every state with one representative should be required to rotate genders. Delegates should serve two year terms, and should be limited to one term at a time, and a life time limit of 4 terms for those over 40 years of age, 6 terms for those under 40.

Of course, these are just musings unless someone with authority takes them and does something with them.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?