Comments on: Washington Post Op-Ed Contains Election Law Misinformation

By: adls elarcm

adls elarcm — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:25:15 +0000

slahwmgq bfriestav mtwbnrypq dvyqaxg xtyulk kqlsgfz tejocgdp

By: hiutopor

hiutopor — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:12:11 +0000

Hi all!

Very interesting information! Thanks!

G’night

By: Phil Sawyer

Phil Sawyer — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:26:04 +0000

Yes it does, actually. Peter Camejo handily defeated David Cobb in the primary election. Furthermore, Mr. Camejo ran as a favorite son candidate who went on to support Ralph Nader.

It is reasonable to say that Mr. Nader had much more support among Green Party voters (as well as all voters) in the Golden State than did Mr. Cobb. To say otherwise would be to attempt to stretch logic in order to justify dictating to the Party Members (and all California voters) that they can not vote for who they really want to vote for.

At the time that all that (the later stage) was going on, I was a member of the Natural Law Party in search of a new Party. Since the Green Party of California behaved in such a manner, I did not register into that Party until much later (the day after the 2006 California primary election, as a matter of fact). It took that long for me to integrate myself with that reality – and go forward (at least as the universe expands and entropy increases – it appears to us to be forward).

Avanti! Will it be Elaine, Cynthia, or Ralph? So far, only Elaine (and some others) have actually announced.

By: Eric Prindle

Eric Prindle — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:12:51 +0000

You said the GPCA “ignor[ed] the will of the voters” by putting Cobb rather than Nader on the ballot. You offer as evidence the fact that Peter Camejo won the California Green presidential primary. The evidence does not support the assertion.

By: Phil Sawyer

Phil Sawyer — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:29:42 +0000

Eric Prindle wrote:

The winner of the California Green primary was Peter Camejo for President, not Camejo for Vice President (or, by extension, Ralph Nader for President). When Camejo first decided to participate in the primary, his announced position was that a vote for him would be a vote for unpledged delegates. He later declined to submit a candidate statement to the California voters’ guide, which would have explained to every California Green voter why he was running. Only after the primary was he announced as Nader’s running mate, and only then did Nader’s supporters start retroactively interpreting votes for him in the California primary as votes for Nader.

Phil Sawyer responds:

“And your point would be … ?”

By: Eric Prindle

Eric Prindle — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:22:08 +0000

None of this has anything to do with the original post. I am inclined to interpret the Post’s assertion the way Richard did, because claiming Camejo was ineligible to be an independent candidate under California law was an active Democratic legal strategy in many states. California itself was not, however, one of those states, so Richard is correct that the Post’s assertion is inaccurate.

By: Phil Sawyer

Phil Sawyer — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:33:17 +0000

Ralph Nader should have run for the Green Party nomination, in my humble opinion. I do not think that he had a sufficient enough political base outside of the Green Party to be really effective. Nevertheless, the Green Party of California was under no obligation, legal or moral, to pass over the Nader-Camejo ticket in favor of David Cobb. Peter Camejo quite handily won the California Green Party primary election in June of 2004.

By ignoring the will of the voters, the California Green Party left many of us without a good, independent choice. Consequently, I (along with many other California people) decided to vote for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

By: Bob Richard

Bob Richard — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:36:35 +0000

Parties abdicate their responsibility to the voters when they fail to nominate a candidate who actually supports their platform. The Peace and Freedom Party is a socialist party and Nader is not a socialist. In the case of Peace and Freedom, the abdication would have been to nominate him.

I know a lot less about the (now defunct) Natural Law Party, but I doubt that Nader supported their platform either.

Just my two cents.

By: mark

mark — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:29:55 +0000

The California Green Party fulfilled its obligation to put the nominee of the US Green Party on the ballot in 2004. David Cobb. Nader chose not to run for the nomination of the Green Party and ran as an independent knowing full well he therefore would not have Green Party ballot lines and, thus, ended up in the mess he is in right now re Pennsylvania.

By: mark

mark — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:28:58 +0000

The California Green Party fulfilled its obligation to put the nominee of the US Green Party on the ballot in 2004. David Cobb. Nader chose not to run for the nomination of the Green Party and ran as an independent knowing full well he therefore not have Green Party ballot lines and, thus, ended up in the mess he is in right now re Pennsylvania.