Comments on: Pennsylvania Green Party Suspends Statewide Petition

By: joell

joell — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:14:04 +0000

For years, there have been internal problems in the Pa GP; and now it won’t have ballot status and is broke. Its time for some new leadership in Pa and many other states, but if the past is an indicator, there won’t be any.

I visit the GP website regularly. To have a ballot access fund drive, on the homepage, with a goal of $10,000 is pathetic; and the $$$$ meter has been at 5k for more than a month.

For serious 3rd party voters, the GP is no longer a viable option.

By: Deemer from California

Deemer from California — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:35:54 +0000

Are the number of adult residents that are listed for
the largest states adjusted for the number of people
who are actually United States citizens who can sign
up to vote based on State law? Because in California,
over 25% of the entire population was born outside of
the 56 jurisdictions of these United States. Curiously,
the same number as the signers of our Declaration of
Independence.

By: Phil Sawyer

Phil Sawyer — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 04:39:11 +0000

Here is an idea: For 2010 petitioning in Pennsylvania, the Green Party and the Nader-Gonzalez forces could combine their efforts and place a Party called the Populist Party on the ballot.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:17:50 +0000

Pennsylvania Attorney Sam Stretton has been saying for 7 months that he is about to file a federal court challenge to the Pennsylvania system which puts petitioning candidates in jeopardy of being forced to pay for the administrative costs of removing them from the ballot, if their petitions are found insufficient. Sam says he will be working on the complaint on July 5-6, so maybe this new case will soon be filed. So there is hope that this burden may be lifted this year.

By: GreenGenes

GreenGenes — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:37:37 +0000

There’s something missing from the story IMHO.
Given the typical under reporting during petitioning they may well have been able to surpass the number needed with nearly a month to go.

Maybe because the margin over the number wouldn’t be high enough, which would lead to a challenge which would succeed in throwing them off PLUS THE COST of such action as has been done in PA in the recent past, resulted in the decision to stop.

I’m speculating but if that’s the case it should be part of the story.

By: Phil Sawyer

Phil Sawyer — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:18:59 +0000

Go Nader-Gonzalez!

By: darren

darren — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:25:18 +0000

The barrier in PA is too high, but so is that in IL. The difference is that in PA you know that if you don’t collect the signatures, you won’t be on the ballot. In IL, the Constitution party got on the ballot without even attempting to meet the signature requirement simply because no one challenged them. The only thing worse than ballot access barriers are arbitrarily enforced ballot access barriers. How unfair to the parties (Libertarian, Nader) that put in so much time and money to collect the 25,000+ signatures.

By: monte letourneau

monte letourneau — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:15:59 +0000

it seems a little silly to call it off at almost one third finished with over three weeks left to go when

i do not know enough to really say, but it just seems silly to me not to continue to try, unless there is some downside to continuing the effort i don’t know about

if there is some huge disincentive, or mitigating factors i am unaware of i could undestand, but i wonder how one knoews this far ahead of time that the effort will fail

i wonder what cost there would have been in not announcing this, and i offer my condolances that your requirements are so stiff in PA, but at least you’re not Texas

i’m from WI, where we have it pretty damn easy, so take my take with a huge grain of whatever makes it feel better

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:35:00 +0000

Andy, PA is sixth in total population, but (having one of the older populations in America) their voting-age population is in fact larger than Illinois.

By: Ed Hennesy

Ed Hennesy — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:32:10 +0000

Some state Green Parties continue to be amazing success stories.

The Green Party needs a single national chair.

The Green Party needs to nominate candidates at every level (federal, state, local)by a plurality, or simple majority.

The states like Minnesota that require 2/3rd votes to nominate are making a mistake that will keep them coffee debate clubs…

Wish the Green Party every success.