<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1543" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>In a message dated 6/28/06 6:14:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
contacts2@marla.cagreens.org writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>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.<BR><BR>*******************************<BR>Below is a questionnaire
regarding apportionment issues from<BR>the GPUS Delegate Apportionment
Committee. Responses are<BR>accepted from individual Greens as well as state
parties.<BR>The responses will influence whether and how much
the<BR>democratic representation of California Green Party members<BR>is
improved in the national party. Please send your<BR>responses to myself,
Greg Gerritt and Dean Myerson<BR>(cat801@mindspring.com,
gerritt@mindspring.com,<BR>greens@deanmyerson.org ). The final deadline for
submissions<BR>is July 10, but earlier is preferred.<BR><BR>I understand
it's a complex and sometimes intimidating topic<BR>and would be happy to
answer questions. 415-897-6989.<BR><BR>Cat Woods<BR>California GPUS
delegation co-coordinator<BR>co-chair, GPUS Delegate Apportionment
Committee<BR><BR>**************************<BR><BR>DELEGATE APPORTIONMENT
QUESTIONNAIRE<BR><BR>A. Minimum Delegation Threshold:<BR>The GPUS has
adopted a minimum threshold of 2 delegates on<BR>the NC from each state to
ensure that all accredited states<BR>are represented in our national
governing body.<BR><BR>Currently there are 44 accreditation states and two
caucuses<BR>(1 delegate each) with representation on the NC. The
number<BR>of delegates on the NC is 120 and the number of
delegates<BR>designated each state based only on the minimum threshold
is<BR>90 (44 x 2 + 2).<BR><BR>This means that the minimum threshold of
delegates allocated<BR>to each state accounts for 75% of the NC and the
delegates<BR>allocated to each state using some measure of
proportional<BR>strength accounts for 25% of the NC.<BR><BR>1. Do you
believe that a higher percentage of delegates<BR>should be chosen based on
some measure of proportional<BR>strength?<BR><BR>__ Yes<BR>__ No<BR>__ Don't
Know<BR><BR>2. What percentage of the delegates to the NC should
be<BR>allocated to each state based on some measure of<BR>proportional
strength?<BR><BR>___ %<BR><BR>3. To increase the percentage of delegates
allocated to each<BR>state based on some measure of proportional strength
would<BR>you support lowering the minimum delegate threshold to 1
per<BR>state or increasing the size of the NC?<BR><BR>__ Lower the Minimum
Delegate Threshold to 1<BR>__ Increase the size of the NC<BR>__ Both<BR>__
Neither<BR><BR>4. Would you consider changing to a regional allocation
of<BR>delegates in order to improve both the proportionality of<BR>delegate
allocation and the proportional representation<BR>within that delegation
(for example, to facilitate racial<BR>balance as well as gender balance on
delegations)?<BR><BR>__ Yes<BR>__ No<BR>__ Don't Know<BR><BR><BR>B. Proxy or
Weighted Voting:<BR>One way to increase proportionality without increasing
the<BR>NC is through weighted or proxy voting, which would allow<BR>states
to have more votes than delegates. For example a<BR>state that currently has
5 delegates could be given 7 votes<BR>based on some measure of proportional
strength. In this<BR>case, the each delegate for that state would cast 1.4
votes<BR>during any decision making process.<BR><BR>1. What do you think of
weighted or proxy voting, where a<BR>state gets more votes than the number
of delegates it has?<BR><BR>__Support<BR>__Do Not Support<BR>__Don't
Know<BR><BR>2. If you favor weighted voting, is that just for
in-person<BR>meetings, or for the listserv as well?<BR><BR>__ In-person
meetings only (e.g a national convention)<BR>__ On-line Voting only<BR>__
Both<BR>__ Neither<BR><BR>3. If you would accept weighted voting, what is
the maximum<BR>number of votes you would accept one delegate
casting?<BR>(e.g., 2.0, 3.5, no limit).<BR><BR>______<BR><BR><BR>C.
Fractional Voting:<BR>A similar method of increasing proportionality is
through<BR>fractional voting. By splitting a single vote into<BR>fractions,
a state is better represent minority views,<BR>especially with small
delegations, in proportion to the<BR>support for that view. For example, a
state might have 2<BR>votes to cast, but could cast 1.5 yes and 0.5 no in
order to<BR>reflect a 3:1 split in opinion.<BR><BR>1. Would you consider
allowing states to use fractional<BR>voting, if it didn't affect overall
vote proportionality?<BR><BR>__ Yes<BR>__ No<BR>__ Don't Know<BR><BR>2. If
yes, would you consider separating the number of state<BR>delegates from the
number of votes allotted to that state?<BR>(For example, a state with three
votes might have six<BR>delegates. This might increase participation at the
national<BR>level.)<BR><BR>__ Yes<BR>__ No<BR><BR>3. If yes on #1, is there
a limit to how small you think a<BR>vote can be split (e.g., 1/2 vote, 1/4
vote, etc.)?<BR><BR>____<BR><BR><BR>D. Determining Proportional
Strength:<BR>One way to determine the proportion strength of the
Green<BR>Party in each state is to use several criteria to
estimate<BR>membership size and then take an average value of
those<BR>criteria. The list of possible criteria currently
being<BR>discussed by the DAC is included in question 2 below.<BR><BR>1.
Would you favor allowing states to choose a subset of<BR>criteria from the
larger list that best fits the conditions,<BR>laws, and bylaws of their
state party, or do you think every<BR>state should use the same set of
criteria?<BR><BR>__ Subset of Criteria<BR>__ Same Criteria<BR><BR>2.
Below is a list of possible criteria we could use to<BR>allow states to
determine their proportional strength<BR>relative to other states. Please
check all criteria that you<BR>think would be appropriate to use as a
measure of<BR>proportional strength.<BR><BR>__ Number of registered Green
voters<BR>__ Green membership rolls (for non-registration states)<BR>__
Number of elected Greens<BR>__ Number of Green candidates that have run for
office (any)<BR><BR>__ Total number of Greens running for statewide and
federal<BR>office (partisan races)<BR>__ Maximum number of votes cast for a
single Green candidate<BR><BR>__ Total number of votes cast for all Green
candidates in<BR>the state<BR>__ Total number of votes cast for Greens
candidates for<BR>local office<BR>__ Total number of votes for David
Cobb<BR>__ Total number of votes for Ralph Nader (2004)<BR>__ Total number
of votes for David Cobb and Ralph Nader<BR>combined<BR>__ State population
size<BR>__Others (please list):<BR>i.<BR>ii.<BR>iii.<BR>iv.<BR>v.<BR><BR>3.
If you favored allowing states to use a subset of<BR>criteria in question 1,
what number of the criteria that you<BR>approved<BR>in the question above is
the appropriate number of criteria<BR>states should choose from that
list?<BR><BR>_____<BR><BR>4. If a method for determining the proportional
strength of<BR>each state is adopted that is based on some calculations
of<BR>Green accomplishment how often do you think the NC numbers<BR>should
be recalculated based on new elections?<BR><BR>__Every year<BR>__Every 2
years<BR>__Every 4 years<BR><BR><BR>Other comments:<BR>[You may wish to
comment on whether you think the<BR>apportionment formula itself should be
revisited<BR>periodically and, if so, how
often.]<BR><BR>_______________________________________________</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>