[Sosfbay-discuss] Fwd: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] GPUS Delegate Apportionment Survey
Fred Duperrault
fredd at freeshell.org
Thu Jun 29 13:32:12 PDT 2006
In a message dated 6/28/06 6:14:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
contacts2 at marla.cagreens.org writes:
This is an announcement from the GPCA Contact List. For more
information, or questions related to the topic of the posting,
please do not hit reply. Follow the contact directions listed
at the end of the email.
*******************************
Below is a questionnaire regarding apportionment issues from
the GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee. Responses are
accepted from individual Greens as well as state parties.
The responses will influence whether and how much the
democratic representation of California Green Party members
is improved in the national party. Please send your
responses to myself, Greg Gerritt and Dean Myerson
(cat801 at mindspring.com, gerritt at mindspring.com,
greens at deanmyerson.org ). The final deadline for submissions
is July 10, but earlier is preferred.
I understand it's a complex and sometimes intimidating topic
and would be happy to answer questions. 415-897-6989.
Cat Woods
California GPUS delegation co-coordinator
co-chair, GPUS Delegate Apportionment Committee
**************************
DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
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?
X 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?
45 %
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
X 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
X 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
X 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
X_ 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
X 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?
_X_ 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.
_X_ Number of registered Green voters
_X_ 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
_X_ 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)
_X_ Total number of votes for David Cobb and Ralph Nader
combined
__ State population size
__Others (please list):
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
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
_X_Every 2 years
__Every 4 years
Other comments:
[You may wish to comment on whether you think the
apportionment formula itself should be revisited
periodically and, if so, how often.]
Every 2 (four)years/______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20060629/e34ceb2b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com
Subject: Fwd: [Sclara-cc] [GPCA Official Notice] GPUS Delegate Apportionment Survey
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:03:06 EDT
Size: 26773
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20060629/e34ceb2b/attachment.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: file:///tmp/nsmail.txt
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20060629/e34ceb2b/attachment.txt>
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list