Prop 332 Alternative Nominating Convention Delegate Apportionment Proposals
Hello,
This one is very complicated in my opinion. Help! Give me and other delegates a direction!
Farheen
http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/irvdetail?pid=332
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
THanks Farheen! for nondelegates, to view the proposals in question go to http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/irvdetail?pid=332
The GPMN CC was not consulted before the state party's name was attatched to one of these proposals as is expected protocol when a state's name is attatched to a proposal.
A proposal can actually be pulled or disqualified on that basis alone if only one state is cosponsor but it is really is not an issue for the proposal in question as PA has gone through that process to my knowledge so the proposal would not be withdrawn with or without MN's support anyway.
Technically if MN was the only sponsor based on infromation from our delegates without at least the CC having knowledge and affirming that choice the proposal would have been automatically disqualified. This happened recently with a proposal from CA that a delegate tried to forward as sponsored by the state. It was rejected as the state CC had not approved it nor was it past by a broader state body.
I would appreciate it if one of our delegates clarified with the NC that MN's CC never saw nor approved the state cosponsoring this proposal.
I also think all our delegates are now aware that in the future if they want to atatch the name of the state party to a proposal it has to be cleared with the GPMN CC at a minimum and ideally is done as much as possible with broader input from state party members perhaps through this blog and other efforts to reach out to the membership. Our delegation is mostly new and there are lots of procedural quirks in the system that take along time to sort out. I know as an alternate for 6 and a half years that I never would have been ready to vote as confidently as I am now if I hadn't already been primarily an alternate for 2 years.
I think all these proposals are unfortunately unfair to Minnesota, Texas, and a number of other states because they are all based on a formula passed in a proposal this summer to which we did not pay close enough attention. Proposal 272 which is the formula used for allocation of delegates to the states has numerous provisions which are unacceptbly unfair to our state and others by grossly undercounting the strength and size of our party relative to that of other states, and it is highly beneficial to a very few states while inappropriately placing Minnesota in with other states that are not particularly active and have nowhere near our level of activity or voting strength or elected officials.
Bill Oldfather was our only active delegate at the time and he did vote against it. THANK YOU BILL! Our new delegates who had just been elected and weren't even on the voting queue at national yet and had no opportunity to cast a vote or muddle through this complex formula. Kirsten Olson did note vote on this proposal nor did she cast an abstention.
But it passed overwhelmingly. Several states didn't look closely enough at the proposal before voting for it and I was not voting at the time for the Lavender Green Caucus because as an alternate I switch off and on with our other delegate so I wasn't paying close enough attention either our I would have made certain to speak out on these inequities at the time.
To view this formula so you can see the numerous ways it mistreats Minnesota and other states based on assumptions based on party registration and primaries, neither of which Minnesota has, and other odd quirks including an odd provision which seems baldly anti-rural to me you may view the proposal at http://green.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=272
Unfortunately, I believe that we have little choice at this point but to choose from among the various proposals on the table because it will be very messy to try to address this problem with the underlying formula at this point because the issues are too complex and too many to change in the time we now have available before a delegate allocation must be passed, i.e prior to the Green state primaries in many states that will begin occurring in early February including in CA, MA, IL, & AR at which time those states should know how many delegates they will recieve so they can process the results of their primary elections.
At this point, I believe we are wise to remember to work to address these inequities prior to the next allocation of delegates to the NC but it's too late to fix it or adjut it for the presidential nominating convention delegate allocation.
So it comes down to which of these proposals is less egregious and doesn't expand even further the inequities present in the underlying formula?
In my opinion the so-called MN/PA proposal is the worst in this regard as it makes several changes to the underlying formula that make the inequities worse as opposed to better. Further, this proposal requires collection of additional data from each state to add to formula computations which means we likely may not be ready with delegate numbers by the time the primary starts. As a MN rep I would not rank this proposal in the IRV vote and perhaps even rank NOTA at the end of those I did rank to make it clear this option is unacceptable vis a vis the others but that may be viewed as confrontational by those delegates who don't understand why the underlying formula is unfair let alone how this proposal makes matters worse and believe this proposal to be fair.
The WV proposal is in my opinion is the fairest to states like MN as it limits the influence of parties which are clearly much smaller than MN's and is the best in terms of trying to balance the midsize states and parties which loose the most represenation due to the inequities in the underlying formula and doesn't add anything to the underlying formula which makes matter worst. I would rank this proposal first.
The VA proposal, is based on the underlying formula which is very unfair and biased but at least unlike the MN/PA doesn't make those inequities worse. I would rank this proposal second.
The GPWA proposal is based on MN/PA proposal but corrects one of the greatest inequities in that the underlying formula as the underlying formula is already extremely biased in favor of CA and the MN/PA proposal would make that bias even worse. The GPWA proposal caps the largest delegation from any one state at 21% of the total delegates which is still biased towards CA and counteracts the bias as it appears many in the CA GP have come to have a highly inflated idea of their support and numbers and party strength relitive to that of the GP in other states despite the fact that they are one of our most successful parties with a large proportion of our elected officials and votes and a state with a huge population but the cap makes the situation somewhat more balanced between CA and the rest of the country and that includes making it slightly more fair for MN though GPWA does nothing to correct the magnification of the already existing inequities in the underlying proposal other than this and winds up mostly benefitting several states which benefit from these biases towards states with GP activity largely focused in urbanized areas , those states with party registration, and those states with primaries, so this proposal still puts MN in a worse spot than either the WV or VA proposals. I would rank this 3rd. I would rank this 3rd in part because it is effort by true believers in the so-called MN/PA proposal to compromise and therefore not ranking this proposal is rejecting that effort at compromise so I would rank it in hopes in recognition of that effort at compromise and to assure that emerge from this process with a delegation allocation proposal which at this late date is more important than the underlying issues and biases as our candidates and states need a proposal for campaigns to move forward fairly as possible as everyone will know the rules.
We will want to address 272 prior to the next allocation of delegates so we need to find out if that when that will be happening so we can build the understanding at the national level about why it is unfair which can take alot of time. I think it will be obvious to many of you familiar with differences in election laws and political cultures from state to state exactly why this is so when you view Proposal 272.
Thanks,
David Strand alt. National Lavender Green delegate to National Committee GPMN Politics Co-chair 3rd CD rep to GPMN CC
I took the time to wade through the 332 alternative proposals. I was actually surprised to find how little difference there was among them and how they allrelied onthe complicated delegate allocation formula anyway ---- which is one of the things I have issues with.
I liked Washington State proposal because it had a cap and I think that may have been the biggest blocking concern about the proposal that failed (one state could end up having so much power over the decision.) Washington capped things at 21%. At least it makes sense to me that if one proposal has already failed the next effort should at least attempt to address concerns and build a compromise.
I worry that the way the delgate allocationis already writtin it gives an unfiar advantage to CA becasue they have Party registration and or the capacity to maintain an up to date data base etc.
I also liked the Virginia and West Virginia proposals. They seemed pretty straight-forward and simply based on the current delegate formula which makes sense. I really do not have a preference on either of these.
I am curious about out how or why our state ended up sponsoring one proposal over th others. I assume the CC or the delegates must have formally voted on this, but I don't remember ever having it come to the members. I know that when I was part of a group presenting a proposal to the national to host the GP convention in Minneapolis the CC was very thoughtful about this, and made sure it was communicated to and brought to a membership meeting. Maybe we need policies to help guide the delegates in this matter.
Finally, I think the whole allocation formula for the delegates (not for the nominating convention but just in gerneral) seems too complicated and like too much work for a state party. I also think it is open to all kinds of possible misinterpretations or tampering. I would like to see a simpler, fairer process, based on more easily attainable and verifiable data that would be easy to test and understand by any member. For states without Party registration, or without a party status that will get them a primary,and/or without the capacity to run a full state of candidate every year, I see no clear, fair and objective way to figure out how many Greens we actually have.
I wonder what other parties do in the U.S. and elsewhere for this kind of thing. I think we need to do more research, at least I would if I were to be able to find the best alternative.
Thanks for all your work, and I hope I got this in before the big vote.
To simplify delegate apportionment, maybe we could reduce it to two variables. One would be state population, the other would simply be the sum of all votes cast for Green candidates for any office in the state, statewide or local. That way states are rewarded for having more candidates and for having more votes. I realize this may not be perfect, because of ballot access laws and differing numbers of levels of government, but at least it's verifiable.
4 comments:
THanks Farheen! for nondelegates, to view the proposals in question go to http://gp.org/cgi-bin/vote/irvdetail?pid=332
The GPMN CC was not consulted before the state party's name was attatched to one of these proposals as is expected protocol when a state's name is attatched to a proposal.
A proposal can actually be pulled or disqualified on that basis alone if only one state is cosponsor but it is really is not an issue for the proposal in question as PA has gone through that process to my knowledge so the proposal would not be withdrawn with or without MN's support anyway.
Technically if MN was the only sponsor based on infromation from our delegates without at least the CC having knowledge and affirming that choice the proposal would have been automatically disqualified. This happened recently with a proposal from CA that a delegate tried to forward as sponsored by the state. It was rejected as the state CC had not approved it nor was it past by a broader state body.
I would appreciate it if one of our delegates clarified with the NC that MN's CC never saw nor approved the state cosponsoring this proposal.
I also think all our delegates are now aware that in the future if they want to atatch the name of the state party to a proposal it has to be cleared with the GPMN CC at a minimum and ideally is done as much as possible with broader input from state party members perhaps through this blog and other efforts to reach out to the membership. Our delegation is mostly new and there are lots of procedural quirks in the system that take along time to sort out. I know as an alternate for 6 and a half years that I never would have been ready to vote as confidently as I am now if I hadn't already been primarily an alternate for 2 years.
I think all these proposals are unfortunately unfair to Minnesota, Texas, and a number of other states because they are all based on a formula passed in a proposal this summer to which we did not pay close enough attention. Proposal 272 which is the formula used for allocation of delegates to the states has numerous provisions which are unacceptbly unfair to our state and others by grossly undercounting the strength and size of our party relative to that of other states, and it is highly beneficial to a very few states while inappropriately placing Minnesota in with other states that are not particularly active and have nowhere near our level of activity or voting strength or elected officials.
Bill Oldfather was our only active delegate at the time and he did vote against it. THANK YOU BILL! Our new delegates who had just been elected and weren't even on the voting queue at national yet and had no opportunity to cast a vote or muddle through this complex formula. Kirsten Olson did note vote on this proposal nor did she cast an abstention.
But it passed overwhelmingly. Several states didn't look closely enough at the proposal before voting for it and I was not voting at the time for the Lavender Green Caucus because as an alternate I switch off and on with our other delegate so I wasn't paying close enough attention either our I would have made certain to speak out on these inequities at the time.
To view this formula so you can see the numerous ways it mistreats Minnesota and other states based on assumptions based on party registration and primaries, neither of which Minnesota has, and other odd quirks including an odd provision which seems baldly anti-rural to me you may view the proposal at http://green.gpus.org/cgi-bin/vote/propdetail?pid=272
Unfortunately, I believe that we have little choice at this point but to choose from among the various proposals on the table because it will be very messy to try to address this problem with the underlying formula at this point because the issues are too complex and too many to change in the time we now have available before a delegate allocation must be passed, i.e prior to the Green state primaries in many states that will begin occurring in early February including in CA, MA, IL, & AR at which time those states should know how many delegates they will recieve so they can process the results of their primary elections.
At this point, I believe we are wise to remember to work to address these inequities prior to the next allocation of delegates to the NC but it's too late to fix it or adjut it for the presidential nominating convention delegate allocation.
So it comes down to which of these proposals is less egregious and doesn't expand even further the inequities present in the underlying formula?
In my opinion the so-called MN/PA proposal is the worst in this regard as it makes several changes to the underlying formula that make the inequities worse as opposed to better. Further, this proposal requires collection of additional data from each state to add to formula computations which means we likely may not be ready with delegate numbers by the time the primary starts. As a MN rep I would not rank this proposal in the IRV vote and perhaps even rank NOTA at the end of those I did rank to make it clear this option is unacceptable vis a vis the others but that may be viewed as confrontational by those delegates who don't understand why the underlying formula is unfair let alone how this proposal makes matters worse and believe this proposal to be fair.
The WV proposal is in my opinion is the fairest to states like MN as it limits the influence of parties which are clearly much smaller than MN's and is the best in terms of trying to balance the midsize states and parties which loose the most represenation due to the inequities in the underlying formula and doesn't add anything to the underlying formula which makes matter worst. I would rank this proposal first.
The VA proposal, is based on the underlying formula which is very unfair and biased but at least unlike the MN/PA doesn't make those inequities worse. I would rank this proposal second.
The GPWA proposal is based on MN/PA proposal but corrects one of the greatest inequities in that the underlying formula as the underlying formula is already extremely biased in favor of CA and the MN/PA proposal would make that bias even worse. The GPWA proposal caps the largest delegation from any one state at 21% of the total delegates which is still biased towards CA and counteracts the bias as it appears many in the CA GP have come to have a highly inflated idea of their support and numbers and party strength relitive to that of the GP in other states despite the fact that they are one of our most successful parties with a large proportion of our elected officials and votes and a state with a huge population but the cap makes the situation somewhat more balanced between CA and the rest of the country and that includes making it slightly more fair for MN though GPWA does nothing to correct the magnification of the already existing inequities in the underlying proposal other than this and winds up mostly benefitting several states which benefit from these biases towards states with GP activity largely focused in urbanized areas , those states with party registration, and those states with primaries, so this proposal still puts MN in a worse spot than either the WV or VA proposals. I would rank this 3rd. I would rank this 3rd in part because it is effort by true believers in the so-called MN/PA proposal to compromise and therefore not ranking this proposal is rejecting that effort at compromise so I would rank it in hopes in recognition of that effort at compromise and to assure that emerge from this process with a delegation allocation proposal which at this late date is more important than the underlying issues and biases as our candidates and states need a proposal for campaigns to move forward fairly as possible as everyone will know the rules.
We will want to address 272 prior to the next allocation of delegates so we need to find out if that when that will be happening so we can build the understanding at the national level about why it is unfair which can take alot of time. I think it will be obvious to many of you familiar with differences in election laws and political cultures from state to state exactly why this is so when you view Proposal 272.
Thanks,
David Strand
alt. National Lavender Green delegate to National Committee
GPMN Politics Co-chair
3rd CD rep to GPMN CC
I took the time to wade through the 332 alternative proposals. I was actually surprised to find how little difference there was among them and how they allrelied onthe complicated delegate allocation formula anyway ---- which is one of the things I have issues with.
I liked Washington State proposal because it had a cap and I think that may have been the biggest blocking concern about the proposal that failed (one state could end up having so much power over the decision.) Washington capped things at 21%. At least it makes sense to me that if one proposal has already failed the next effort should at least attempt to address concerns and build a compromise.
I worry that the way the delgate allocationis already writtin it gives an unfiar advantage to CA becasue they have Party registration and or the capacity to maintain an up to date data base etc.
I also liked the Virginia and West Virginia proposals. They seemed pretty straight-forward and simply based on the current delegate formula which makes sense. I really do not have a preference on either of these.
I am curious about out how or why our state ended up sponsoring one proposal over th others. I assume the CC or the delegates must have formally voted on this, but I don't remember ever having it come to the members. I know that when I was part of a group presenting a proposal to the national to host the GP convention in Minneapolis the CC was very thoughtful about this, and made sure it was communicated to and brought to a membership meeting. Maybe we need policies to help guide the delegates in this matter.
Finally, I think the whole allocation formula for the delegates (not for the nominating convention but just in gerneral) seems too complicated and like too much work for a state party. I also think it is open to all kinds of possible misinterpretations or tampering. I would like to see a simpler, fairer process, based on more easily attainable and verifiable data that would be easy to test and understand by any member. For states without Party registration, or without a party status that will get them a primary,and/or without the capacity to run a full state of candidate every year, I see no clear, fair and objective way to figure out how many Greens we actually have.
I wonder what other parties do in the U.S. and elsewhere for this kind of thing. I think we need to do more research, at least I would if I were to be able to find the best alternative.
Thanks for all your work, and I hope I got this in before the big vote.
To simplify delegate apportionment, maybe we could reduce it to two variables. One would be state population, the other would simply be the sum of all votes cast for Green candidates for any office in the state, statewide or local. That way states are rewarded for having more candidates and for having more votes. I realize this may not be perfect, because of ballot access laws and differing numbers of levels of government, but at least it's verifiable.
Dude, I have no idea how to vote for this.
Post a Comment