Re: [occupy-where-I-live:4856] Re: VP candidate in town? Debate watching? (fwd)

[robert <http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert>]

How interesting.

 > From: Noelle <http://dummy.us.eu.org/noelleg>
 > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
 >
 > 3rd parties
 > 
 >  > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:20:52 -0700
 >  > From: Dave Kadlecek <http://www.igc.org/~dkadlecek>
 >  > 
 >  >  Ajay  and  all,
 >  > 
 >  >  Ajay  is  wrong  in  two  of  his  comments  about  the  Peace  and  
 >  >  Freedom  Party's
 >  >  ballot  status.  All  third  parties  in  Ca  are  in  danger  of  
 >  >  losing
 >  >  ballot  status  unless  Proposition  14  is  overturned  or  the  state  
 >  >  changes
 >  >  its  criteria  for  staying  on  the  ballot.
 >  > 
 >  >  First,  while  the  Peace  and  Freedom  Party  did  lose  its  ballot  
 >  >  status
 >  >  after  the  1998  election,  by  not  getting  2%  of  the  vote  for  any  
 >  >  of  the
 >  >  statewide  offices  on  the  ballot  that  year  (when  there  were  eight
 >  >  ballot-qualified  parties),  it  regained  ballot  status  in  2003  not  
 >  >  through
 >  >  a  legal  challenge  but  by  meeting  the  registration  test  (
 >  >  registrants
 >  >  equal  to  1%  of  the  total  vote  in  the  most  recent  gubernatorial  
 >  >  election).
 >  > 
 >  >  This  was  accomplished  partly  by  a  registration  drive,  appealing  to
 >  >  people  who  wanted  to  make  sure  there  was  a  socialist  party  on  
 >  >  the  ballot
 >  >  in  Ca,  which  neither  the  Democrats  (who  have  a  few  
 >  >  socialists
 >  >  active  in  their  party)  nor  the  Greens  (of  whom  a  substantial  
 >  >  proportion
 >  >  are  socialists,  but  as  a  party  they  are  just  opposed  to  big  
 >  >  corporations
 >  >  and  not  to  organizing  the  economy  around  private  profit)  are.  
 >  >  That  the
 >  >  number  of  registrants  required  to  get  ballot  status  was  reduced  
 >  >  by  the
 >  >  low  turnout  in  the  2002  gubernatorial  election  (Gray  Davis  vs.  
 >  >  Bill
 >  >  Simon)  also  helped.
 >  > 
 >  >  Second,  because  the  Peace  and  Freedom  Party  got  at  least  2%  of  
 >  >  the  vote
 >  >  for  several  statewide  offices  in  the  2010  election,  it  has  ballot 
 >  >   status
 >  >  until  the  end  of  2014.  How  well  or  poorly  the  Roseanne  
 >  >  Barr/Cindy
 >  >  Sheehan  ticket  does  in  this  year's  presidential  election  in  
 >  >  Ca
 >  >  has  nothing  to  do  with  whether  or  not  the  Peace  and  Freedom  
 >  >  Party  keeps
 >  >  its  ballot  status  in  our  state.
 >  > 
 >  >  However,  because  of  Proposition  14  (the  "top  two"  primary  measure,
 >  >  passed  in  June  2010),  it's  a  virtual  certainty  that  the  Peace  
 >  >  and
 >  >  Freedom  Party,  the  Green  Party,  the  Libertarian  Party  and  the  
 >  >  American
 >  >  Independent  Party  will  all  fail  to  get  2%  of  the  vote  for  a  
 >  >  statewide
 >  >  office  in  the  2014  general  election,  because  none  of  them  will  
 >  >  have  any
 >  >  candidates  on  the  ballot  for  statewide  office  in  that  election.  
 >  >  Thus  all
 >  >  four  third  parties  will  need  to  meet  the  registration  test  to  
 >  >  keep
 >  >  ballot  status  after  2014.  The  American  Independent  Party  has  well  
 >  >  over
 >  >  the  registration  level  needed  (mostly  because  many  of  its  
 >  >  registrants
 >  >  thought  that  it  was  the  same  as  registering  "independent",  i.e.,  
 >  >  decline
 >  >  to  state,  not  because  they  knew  it  was  the  far  right-wing  party  
 >  >  that
 >  >  started  by  running  George  Wallace  in  1968),  but  the  other  three  
 >  >  are  all
 >  >  in  danger  of  losing  their  ballot  status  after  2014.  Both  the  
 >  >  Peace  and
 >  >  Freedom  and  Libertarian  parties  currently  have  fewer  registrations  
 >  >  than
 >  >  the  1%  that  will  be  needed  (unless  the  2014  election  has  a  
 >  >  significantly
 >  >  lower  turnout  than  in  2010),  and  the  Greens  have  currently  have  
 >  >  barely
 >  >  over  the  level  of  registrations  that  will  be  needed.  If  the  laws 
 >  >   don't
 >  >  change,  even  the  AIP  will  eventually  lose  its  ballot  status  (
 >  >  though
 >  >  probably  not  in  2015),  as  the  state  has  changed  voter  
 >  >  registration  forms
 >  >  to  make  it  much  less  likely  new  voters  will  confuse  it  with
 >  >  decline-to-state.
 >  > 
 >  >  /Dave  Kadlecek