<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 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 bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font id="role_document" color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">
<div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid blue; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"><font
style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000" face="Arial"
size="2">
<div>In a message dated 6/28/06 6:14:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:contacts2@marla.cagreens.org">contacts2@marla.cagreens.org</a> writes:</div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid blue; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"><font
style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000" face="Arial"
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>
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cat801@mindspring.com">cat801@mindspring.com</a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gerritt@mindspring.com">gerritt@mindspring.com</a>,<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:greens@deanmyerson.org">greens@deanmyerson.org</a> ). 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>
X 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>
45 %<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>
X 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>
X 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>
X 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>
X_ 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>
X 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>
_X_ 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>
_X_ Number of registered Green voters<br>
_X_ 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>
_X_ 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>
_X_ 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>
_X_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>
Every 2 (four)years/______________________________________________</font></blockquote>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<div></div>
</font><br>
</body>
</html>