Constitution Party Chooses a Stand-in Presidential Candidate

Most states enable a group that is not yet a qualified party, but which wants to become a qualified party, to circulate a petition that has the sole function of qualifying that group as a party. Such petitions are commonly called “party petitions”, and do not carry the names of any candidates.

Unfortunately, eleven states don’t have such “party petitions”, or any other procedure for turning a group into a qualified party in advance of any election. These eleven “bad” states force a group to circulate a candidate petition. If the candidate polls enough votes, then the group becomes a qualified party.

In these states that require candidate petitions to be circulated, it is generally legal for a group that wishes to start before it has chosen its presidential nominee to show a stand-in presidential candidate on the petition. Then, when the party chooses its actual presidential candidate, the stand-in withdraws and the group is permitted to substitute the name of the actual candidate.

Minor parties with experience understand this, and generally choose a stand-in presidential candidate. The Constitution Party has already chosen its stand-in presidential candidate. He is Jim Clymer, the party’s national chair, and already petitions with his name are being prepared for the Constitution Party of West Virginia, which wants to begin petitioning very soon.


Constitution Party Chooses a Stand-in Presidential Candidate — 11 Comments

  1. More deceiption from a great idea.

    The Constitution Party COULD be the rallying point of anit establishment groups across the spectrum! The party and its affiliates [American Independent Party in Cali] have great official stands, including abused veterans!

    These official credes could be the corner stone of a long term and even sucessful asault on the corrupt insider duopoly! Instead, these formal platform planks are merely smoke screen for the anti abortionists.

    Smoke and Mirrors: The Constitution Party —those darn back stabbers!

  2. As a person who is to the left of the Constitution Party on the political spectrum, I must say that the Party is starting to show some of the seriousness about the 2008 elections that I have been preaching about since November of 2004.

    This all reminds me of August, 1974, when the Committee for a Constitutional Presidency was born. The plan was to elect, in 1976, an independent as President of the United States – one who would focus on bringing the country back to its Constitutional Principles and away from the Imperial Presidency. On January 25, 1975, Eugene J. McCarthy announced that he would be a candidate for president and CCP became CCP/McCarthy ’76. In the end, our campaign did not prevail in the election but we were very instrumental in helping along the fight for fair ballot, debate, and media access.

    It is unfortunate that the left, generally, is not as ambitious and organized as the Libertarian Party and (once again, it seems) the Constitution Party. There is still a little time for that to change, though. Here is hoping and praying that my comrades finally wake up to what is really needed to wage a real fight.

    Let CPUSA, DSA, and PDA, play their liberal games. This is political warfare!

    Member: CUIP; GPUS; SPUSA; Unity08

  3. I fail to see how a socialist like ex-Sen. Eugene McCarthy would have brought the U. S. “back to its constitutional principles.”

    McCarthy was a funny socialist– but a socialist nonetheless.

    I wanted McCarthy to do well in ’76, since he drained votes from the Democrats. He caused Jimmy Carter to lose at least one state.

  4. If only in 1976 Eugene McCarthy could have gotten some more votes from Carter from Mississippi and Ohio (the two closest states between Carter and Ford), or gotten on the ballot in New York, we could have had Ford for four years instead of that bumbler!!

  5. While I had to write in the name of the Constitution Party Presidentil candidate in New York in the 2004 election, it was more of a protest vote. In reality, I recognize that the Constitution Party’s values are the same as the values of the far right Republicans. In New York, we’re told that if you want to run on their party line, you have to be anti-abortion in all cases and pro-life in all cases. They won’t be picking up any moderates with those planks since moderates at least believe in abortion if the mother’s life is in danger, not to mention that Terry Schiavo had a right, through proxy, to end medical treatment. It’s hard to see how the Constitution Party can gain any ground without a softening of some of their stances. Still, I support any organized party that chips away at the two party system.

  6. An article in the “Sacramento Union,” dated 11-6-76, quotes Eugene J. McCarthy as having said the previous day about Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford that “‘both should have lost.'” The article went on to say that the Senator was “glad the Democrat won the election so the public can see there’s no real difference between the major parties. ‘If Ford had won, the Democrats would be saying forever that things would have been better if Carter had been elected,’ said McCarthy. ‘Now, it will be a good chance to make the comparison.'”

    Regarding the Constitution Party, Steve Ziemba is correct. It is, indeed, “hard to see how” the Party “can gain any ground without a softening of some of their stances.” That is right on! The Constitution of the United States is not beholden to the far right for its legitimacy. One good thing that you can say for the Constitution Party is that it is seriously tring to gain ground. As I have said just recently, though, the fate of that party may have been sealed in 2000 when Patrick Buchanan decided to enter the Reform Party rather than the Constituion Party (which would have been his more logical choice).

    By the way, I did vote for Michael Peroutka in the American Independent Party’s 2004 California Primary Election. In the November General Election, I voted for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. It was my belief that Senator Kerry has a much better grasp of the necessity for the separation of church and state than does Mr. Peroutka.

  7. Peroutka appeared as a practical candidate for our Party and yes who I did vote for, but then afterwards he did a 180′ and joined the religious nuts that were causing problems for the CP. As much as he did most of his 2004 campaigning in Utah and with the Utah CP, he’s a anti-Mormon liar that hid himself til’ after 04.

  8. Does anybody have anything better to do than bash the Constitution Party? That energy would be better spent bashing the two major parties, or promoting your ideal third-party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *