[statecom-discuss] goals

[Nat Fortune]

> On Feb 2, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote:
> Ah, this helps to clarify -
>
> Nat says:
> "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. "
>
> Nat does not say whose goal "wanting Nader to run on our ballot  
> line" belongs
> to but his arugment does follow logically from that.
>
> My only problem with it was that that was never the goal of a  
> number of
> people.   And we have no way to verify even what the intent of a  
> majority of the State Convention was.


The goal I referred to was doing Y INSTEAD of Z, where Y is run on  
our ballot  and Z is run as an independent. The INSTEAD is important,  
and the prospect of Z instead of Y is what has been voiced repeatedly  
as a concern in these discussions.   That is the concern I was trying  
to address.

As for the intent of State Convention, I was referring to state  
conventions decision   to extend an invitation to both Greens and  
qualified independents to be on our ballot.   We are still hearing  
objections to having Nader on the ballot based on the argument that  
he is an independent rather than a member of the Green party. That  
Nader is an independent is something worth considering by voters on  
Feb 5th, but party membership was a criteria that State Con  
explicitly chose NOT to require.