The process is pretty simple: Get in touch with me, the State Chair, and I will check with our other state officers and select someone from your county (if we have multiple applicants) to appoint as Interim County Chair. After you are sworn in by the Registrar or County Clerk, you have one opportunity to appoint additional members of the County Central Committee. After that, any additional appointments must be decided collectively by the County Central Committee.

It is best for us to appoint someone who has some experience or skills that will be helpful in dealing with the Registrar of Voters, one of the main duties of a County Chair. But if others are available who can help with that (and several of us elsewhere in California can help with advice and information), it doesn’t really necessarily matter who has the formal title.

People who are actively hostile to socialist ideas (broadly defined) probably do not belong in Peace and Freedom Party leadership. But I think you will find, reading our Platform, that about 90% of it would, at least line-by-line, have majority support from most Californians right now. The rest is a matter of education and experience, generally obtained by workers at the “School of Hard Knocks.”

The way the Peace and Freedom Party looks at all political issues is fairly simple – we ask “what is in the interests of working people?” (And we certainly include those who wish they had work, as well as retired workers, the children of working-class families, etc.) We figure the rich already have lots of political representation.

I am distorting my e-mail address to keep it from earning me any more spam, but it should be clear enough. Write to me at kevinakin1950(at)hotmail.com and tell me your county and something about yourself, if you are interested in becoming an active local official of the Peace and Freedom Party. If you are in a county where we already have an organization, we need you there too! -Kevin

Also, can the new chair provide some information on how we can organize official county central committees (or whatever you call them) for P&F in unorganized counties?

Thanks for being so up-front with what’s happening, it’s a good sign of health for P&F, unlike the undemocratic Greens who’ve been steadily sliding into exclusionary irrelevance since the Cobb debacle of 2004.

Great news that we “Caulifornians” will have a choice in November that wont make our stomachs turn to vote for.

Funny, that the LA Times didn’t have a word about this win .
Musta’ been the job of one of the 150 news staffers they just terminated…!?

Get the message out, Ralph!

The February PFP presidential preference primary is non-binding. The selection of delegates came later, in the June primary. A relatively recent state law, designed to cripple small parties, requires that a write-in candidate for Central Committee must file a petition well before the write-in nomination period asking that a space be provided on the ballot for names of central committee candidates to be written in. This petition requires 25 valid signatures, while the number of nomination signatures required, depending on the party registration, varies from one to 20. Few potential write-in candidates were able to overcome this hurdle this year, and anyone who was registered in another party during part of the previous year could only run as a write-in. The disadvantage to Nader was great. In over 90% of districts, they could run no one. But in the few districts where they were able to run someone, their large organization and relatively broad support enabled them to get most of the delegates.

Write-in votes are usually counted weeks after the election, which was torture for the Nader campaign, as they had to decide whether to do a simultaneous independent petition campaign (estimated cost $600,000)to make sure Nader got on the ballot. They counted and recounted their prospects every day, but ultimately decided to risk everything on prevailing at the Peace and Freedom convention.

It also did not help them figure their prospects that Peace and Freedom delegates are traditionally uncommitted, many of them up to the last day. In fact, the speeches the night before the vote actually changed several minds – in all directions, but with a net effect in favor of Nader.

The four candidates were quite impressive, especially as a group. A few delegates were moved to tears by the need to reject three of them. (Seek out the video of the August 1 forum when someone gets around to posting it.)

Most of the delegates expected the vote to go to a second and third round, and put considerable thought into deciding on second and third choices if their first choices were eliminated. It was a big surprise when Nader won on the first round, with one whole vote to spare. Several others intended to vote for him on the second or third ballot, so he probably would have won even if he had ten fewer delegates, but there was also a good chance that if Nader and La Riva had ended up stalemated below the 50% mark, Moore could have won in the end.

While the delegates loved Cynthia McKinney, she had put little effort into qualifying candidates to go to the convention to vote for her, and the delegates were much more enthusiastic about her than they were about campaigning in tandem with the Green Party, whose nomination she had already secured.

I am going on too long here, but let me tell you about two of the resolutions passed at the end of the convention. One of them, signifying the high regard for all of the candidates, committed the Party not to expel or discipline any member who supported the campaign of Moore, La Riva, or McKinney, even in opposition to the nominee of the party. (Both party Bylaws and the state elections code provide for expulsion for supporting someone who runs against a party nominee.) Very few are expected to take advantage of this resolution, but both Gloria La Riva and Moore running mate Stewart Alexander are PFP State Central Committee members, so this is important to them.

The other resolution was a reaction to a misbegotten smeary story in the Sacramento Bee. During his speech on Saturday morning, Nader criticized those who call themselves socialists, but support regimes that oppress and kill their own people. (Some La Riva supporters, but no one else, characterized this statement as “anti-socialist.”) The Bee writer said that Nader had attacked socialism, and so did the sub-head writer. When Nader saw this the next morning, he was angry, and wrote a letter to the editor saying quite emphatically that he had not criticized socialism. At breakfast I told several people that the Bee’s bungled smear was like calling someone “anti-Christian” who criticized the Inquisition, and this must have traveled fast, because the same comparison appeared in Nader’s letter some two hours later, phrased a bit differently. At lunch Congressional candidate Gene Ruyle made 100 copies of a short, simple resolution: “This 40th anniversary Convention of the Peace and Freedom Party proudly reaffirms its commitment to socialism as expressed in its Platform.” There was some vigorous discussion when it came to the floor, but when it was time to vote, there was a room full of voting cards raised for “yes,” none at all for “no,” and only three abstentions, a low number for a vote at a Peace and Freedom meeting. The message was quite clear – though Nader himself will not accept any “ism” as describing his views, those who nominated him are for socialism.

If anyone has any questions, I will check this site tomorrow and be happy to answer them.

McKinney supporter from NJ.

That and asprin will reduce the pounding in his ears!

Ralph is seeking the nomination of the Ecology Party in Florida. This is a new party, formed predominantly by Green Party defectors who support Nader. I’m unclear regarding Florida ballot law for presidential candidates. I believe it’s very easy for a party to place their candidate on the ballot if the candidate is already listed on another state’s ballot. I have questions regarding the required status of the campaign in the other state. By this I mean it seems unlear to me weather or not the candidate has to be nominated by the same party in each state. I know for instance that Nader is on the ballot in several states as a member of the Independent Party. I’ve also seen the Florida Ecology Party refered to as the Independent/Ecology Party. I wonder, structurally, what must the affiliation be between the several state parties to get on the Florida ballot. I also wonder what the timeline has to be like. Can the Ecology Party become part of the Independent Party after endorsing Nader and still get him on the ballot?

Richard?

Details, details, details: Ruben Hernandez and spouse Janice Miller [an elected public official] and other FLoridians walked out of the DFW court ordered ‘national convention’ !

I am absolutely certain that the [BALLOT ACCESSED] Reform Party of FLorida would be THRILLED to nominate some one other than a person connected with John Blare and the other Independence gang [Frank MacKay] OR court ordered national joke [and illegal in Mississippi and Louisiana] Ted [Theodore] Weill!