[statecom-discuss] new and important information from the 1-27 State Comm.

[Nat Fortune]

I have given up hope that anything I can say about the presidential  
primary ballot access process will ever prove satisfactory with  
everyone, but since I was asked to respond to all of state com, I  
hope this will suffice for most:

  The important word in 2.1  about requirements (see below) is ONLY.   
We took 2.1 to be the only requirements, because that is what the  
document says. There have been serious allegations from a couple of  
our own party members  that we failed to follow our own rules, and  
did so willfully and fraudulently. I find such allegations slanderous  
and astounding.  We followed the spirit of the State Convention to  
allow independents in addition to Green Party members and we followed  
the letter of the requirements that were written.

More broadly, I cannot understand the argument that placing Ralph  
Nader on the ballot is contrary to the goal of wanting Nader to run  
on our ballot line instead of as an independent.  In 2000, with a  
candidate who happened to be Ralph Nader running for our party's  
nomination and appearing on our ballot line, we gained major party  
ballot-access status. In 2004, with Nader running as an independent  
instead of appearing on our ballot line, the vote was split and we  
did not keep that status. As a result, many want to ensure this time  
that Nader seeks our party's nomination instead of running as an  
independent. Let's suppose you are one such person and you want Nader  
( or any other individual) to run on our party's ballot line instead  
of as an independent. The necessary first step is for that person to  
actually be on the presidential primary ballot.   If your goal is to  
encourage Nader to run on the Green Party ticket instead of as an  
independent, how do you make that happen by leaving him off the  
ballot? How would leaving him off the ballot discourage him from  
running as an independent?

More broadly still, what hubris is it for us to declare that someone  
who has already twice been our national party's  candidate for  
president --  on our ballot line ---- is not even worthy of a  
position on our state party's presidential primary ballot? This is  
the same behavior that surfaced when Jill Stein sought endorsement  
for her run for state rep after she had already run for governor on  
our ticket, and, like Jamie,  had earning a high enough percentage of  
the vote to preserve our ballot access status.  Is this really how we  
want to treat those who have run at the head of our ticket? How more  
discouraging of candidates can we actually be before we have no  
candidates at all?

What, precisely, is the goal here? Why are we more content to  
endlessly bicker about the primary in a contest we will not win this  
November instead of doing any of the work that would have been  
necessary to field candidates in races we could win? Why is it  
thought that this is really the best use of the time of state com, ad  
com and the co-chairs? Are we afraid to let this party grown in  
membership (instead of decline) and be successful electorally at ALL  
levels (instead of flounder at the lowest non-partisan level) because  
we will no longer have the same influence we have today, for better  
or worse?  Are we afraid of democracy? Why not let the voters say who  
merits being the Green Party's presidential candidate this fall? Why  
would we tolerate an election in which they didn't?

If discussion on the presidential primary ballot access process must  
continue,  I hope it is because everyone involved thinks it is more  
important to spend our time (and the time of others) on this than on  
any other issue. I hope it is because everyone involved thinks it it  
is worth splitting the party over.

signing off,

Nat Fortune


> On Feb 1, 2008, at 2:21 PM, mikeheichman at verizon.net wrote:
>
> 2.1 Requirements
>
> The only requirements for a candidate to be placed on the presidential
> primary ballot are:
>
> (Note from Mike: ãAä is crossed out.) That the candidate be either  
> a Green
> Party member in their home state
> (provided their home state has an active state Green Party that has
> membership criteria) or, in lieu of a state Green
> Party membership criteria, be a declared Green Party member  
> according to
> their stateâs regular process, or be an
> independent, i.e. a member of no other political party who indicate  
> their
> intent to be placed on our presidential
> primary ballot and their support of the Green Partyâs 10 Key  
> values. Proof
> of being a Green Party member is based on
> the membership requirements of the candidateâs home state party.
>
> (B) That the candidate declare support of the Green Partyâs 10 Key  
> Values.ÿ
> (Note: This whole line is crossed out.)
>
>
> 2.2 Contacting candidates to be on the presidential primary ballot