On January 13, the state central committee of the American Independent Party (Keyes faction) held a conference call meeting, and voted overwhelmingly to tell the California Secretary of State that the party no longer wishes independents to vote in its primaries for public office. Attendance was 27 people. California election law lets each party decide for itself whether to let independents vote in its primaries for public office. The AIP had been the only ballot-qualified party, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, to let independents vote in any of its primaries for public office.
This will show Nancy Spirkoff former Chairman of the AIP
that she should not have given disinformation to the SOS
by letter of January 10, 2006.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
P.S. This also means that Nightingale can not use signaturer of voters that decline to state a political
party for signatures in lieu.
good, yet another case for non-enrolled registered voters to cite in other states when wanting to defend the confusing use of the word “independent” in primary eligible ballot-access party names.
How stupid of them–what are they attempting to achieve?
Well, according to the Democratic Party Secretary of State Debra Bowden, it is their party [the Ed Noonan and Mark Seidenberg bragaide vis a vis Ambassador Alan Keyes] and if they want to take measures to keep Nightingale, Grundmann and other Chuck Baldwin allies out of their orbit (and off of their ballot) then (the State of) California has given them that option !
Stupid ??????? As in positively brilliant ?????
well if keyes is in control it already doomed. keys is another harold stassen
The Robinson/Seidenberg/Noonan corruption faction of the AIP cannot and will not keep the REAL AIP of Jim King, myself, and other non-corruption candidates off of the ballot. Their complete and utter corruption will defeated and flushed down the toilet into the sewers of history where they belong. The only reason ( and the real reason as compared to the public excuse ) for the actions of the corruption faction is that they are attempting to isolate the number of voters they will try to influence to vote for their candidates of corruption in the upcoming primaries in which Robinson will be campaigning for Governor and Noonan for U.S. Senate. This will unfortunately give the AIP the sad distiction of having 2 of the most corrupt political candidates in the history of the nation on the primary ballot at the same time. The good news is that they will be annihilated and flushed down the toilet that much sooner. I will personally inform the AIP voters of the state regarding the truth that Robinson and Noonan are 2 of the 3 biggest criminals to ever be in the party. Their criminal enterprise of using the AIP to aid the fund-raising campaigns of the criminal Alan Keyes will be stopped.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
# 6 Looks like something that Stalin did in the commie party and that Hitler did in the nazi party — liquidate their enemies ??? !!!!.
Mark, I don’t think you can legally keep Nightingale or other candidates off the ballot. And why are you still obssessed with Nancy? She doesn’t live in California anymore, nor is she still active with the CP.
I normally don’t take sides in the intra-party disputes of a party that I otherwise generally support. But the faction that apparently is recognized by the California Secretary Of State as the official leadership, is only “cutting off their nose to spite their face.” They are saying to the some 1 million plus “independents” (or “Declined To State” as “independents” are known in California) that “we don’t want your support.” And most likely in November, they will not get it.
For some 40 years I have been so baffled at the shallow political savvy of most 3rd partisans – whether they are parties of the “right” or of the “left.” I sometimes just have to shake my head and walk away.
When are you going to learn? You CANNOT build a party on a narrow philosophical base. You must reach out to people who share at least some of your views if not all of them.
I hope the Nightingale supporters after this election is over, will work to democratically take over the leadership of the California AIP and make it a 3rd party with some common sense and political savvy.
I see nothing wrong with this. Parties are private organizations of individuals. They should be able to choose who they want voting in their primaries. The story is rather funny though, given the party’s name.
Reply to Cody Quirk post # 8.
Cody,
Chelene Nightingale has not been an elector of the American Independent Party the one full year. She
was “flagged” by the Los Angeles County Registrar
of Voters.
I am not obsessed with Nancy. However, she had no right to write the disinformation letter to the CA
Secretary of State on January 10, 2006. Because of
that bogus letter of Nancy, people trying to get on
the Redistricting Commission my be no quilified to
serve.
I would like to get your ideas on how the AIP State
Central Committee should deal with Nancy and all her
disinformation? My current idea is to open probate
on the Estate of Wm Shearer to solve part of the issues
the AIP faces this year. I would like you input on
how you think the SCC should go about getting the party
records from Nancy and Ann. If you do not want a public
posting, just e-mail me.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party
I don’t see how this is so bad. If every party held open primaries, then wouldn’t the democrats be able to vote liberal candidates into the republican party, thereby going against the party agenda. Couldn’t a single agenda then take control over any and all parties that way, leaving a few parties with the same agenda?
TO Trent Hill reply to you post # 3.
Trent,
First, by the action the SCC took the signatures in lieu
petition is limited on Statewide races to 150. If we acted another way on the vote the number of signatures could raise to 10,000.
Next, our former State Chairman on January 10, 2006 wrote the CA SOS a letter of disiinformation. That
could have impacted persons trying to get selected
on the redistricting commission.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
P.S. By a resent e-mail from Evan Goldberg to Barbara
Dunmore it stated that “…I suppose it’s possible to
“register” with the Libertarian Party, take part in their conventions, and register to vote as a decline-
to-state voter…”. SB 28 is wrong for the electors
in the AIP and the SCC was protecting the AIP electors
from this kind of thing taking place within this party.
The e-mail was sent to the Riverside County Registrar
of Voters from the Deputy CA Secretary of State on January 14, 2010.
Elliott Graham and Charles Deemer were in a dispute over
an open or closed primary for 2010. At Mr. Graham’s
request, Chairman Robinson raise the issue to the floor.
Now Mr. Graham is the winner and Mr. Deemer is the loser.
Pre-script:( I am not going to involve myself in the Calif. AIP debate when commenting on this topic.) # 12: I agree with you. It makes sense that a party has just those in the party voting for the primary candidates. Based on what happened in 2008, the 2012 primaries could have tons of GOP voters voting for Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary while Democratic voters vote for a weak candidate in the GOP primaries….
I know the courts have longed ruled to the contrary, and political parties can decide who can and who cannot participate in their primaries.
But still, doesn’t the preamble of the US Constitution begin with “We the People…” not “We the Political Parties…?”
The people – and only the people – should decide who should serve in our government – whether local, state or national. Unfortunately, the party system we have to day somewhat short circuits that.
Mark, to solve it and most of the our problems, how about your party re-affiliates with the CP, that ought to be taken care of first and foremost.
And even if these AIP candidates running aren’t exactly on your side, to remove them from the ballot only will vilify you to the third-party community and give the other side major ammo that shows you guys are Republican Stalwarts.
Cody,
I do not understand part of your post # 16.
First, the last time a heard from Howard Phillips was from
him yelling at me from across a patio “Mark my friend, go
away!”
Second, The American Independent Party joined as a national
affiliate the America’s Independent Party on June 27, 2008.
The Constitution Party is past history of the AIP. AIP
has moved on.
Third, Most of the AIP’s problems these days come from a cabal calling themselves “Constitution Party of California”. Jim King sued Noonan and Robinson since 2008.
The next hearing is March 26, 2010. So far he is a big loser.
Fourth, according to NVRA post for California, the AIP could have let the Reform Party electors vote in the AIP
primany and allowed them to sign petitions in lieu and
still stay under 5% rule. What we did on January 13th limited the petitions in lieu to only AIP electors. Kept
the required signature “in Lieu” down to 150. We could
have raised the count required for statewide offices to
10,000. We did not.
Fifth, What are you trying to say when you make the statement “to remove them from the ballot only will vilify
you”?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
Then you may need to think about what I said, for awhile.
Okay I have just come across a website
endorsing Chelene Nightingale for governor….it is listed under ATT…If you can believe this….The site tells voters to register for AIP to vote in the primary in June…then it proceeds to say..”you can change back to your own party after you vote!!” This is just so wrong. Deceitful disgusting and
everything sickening about Dirty wannabe politicians.
I have to disagree with don archer. While I understand that “party primary raiding” can be a problem, I still say the the right of the people to decide who shall be elected to public office outweights the right of parties to pick their nominees. With our closed primary system like we have in most states, party hacks can pretty well decide, via closed primaries, in both the major parties who the nominees will be. The people are left on the outside having to decide to support either “Dweedle Dum” or “Dweedle Dee” in the general election. This was not what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
To offset the problems of “primary raiding” so that a bad or weak candidate will not be nominated by “outside” help, thus allowing another party’s candidate to have an easier time of it in the general election, we need to have not just open primaries, but a single “OPEN PRIMARY” so that primary raiding would be moot and useless. For in a single “Open Primary” the top two candidates go into the general election – or, such can be designed where at least the candidate of each political party with the most votes in the primary – go into the general election. (There then can be such a thing as “top two,” “top three,”top four,” etc, depending how many parties are qualified to participate in a single “Open Primary.”) This way if there is an organized effort to support the so-called “crook” or “weak” candidate of a party, the participators are only “cutting off their nose to spite their face.” Because while they are wasting their votes supporting the “crook” or “weak” candidate, these votes could very well be the votes needed by their favored candidate to make it into the “top two,” “top three,” etc.
Still, the people should have the right to decide who shall be nominated and elected, notwithstanding any problems such a single “Open Primary” might encounter. I have faith in the people – not the political parties.
Alabama Independent – 1) The ” top two ” primary idea is an attempt to finally crush the possible or real influence of third parties. 2) ” don archer ” is really the ultra corrupt Mark Seidenberg whose actions are documented at TheCorruptionOfAlanKeyes.blogspot.com.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
To: Don Archer
Now “Three Dates Don” Grundmann asseverates that you must be me. I only post on my own name. The reason
Don Grundmann has the handle of “Three Dates Don” he
claims election victory on three different dates in June, 2008, viz., June 6, June 27, & June 29.for the
office of Vice Chairman.
The real fact is I was re-elected Vice Chairman of the
American Independent Party at the State Central Committee meeting on July, 6, 2008 in the Auditorium of
the California Secretary of State Building. In fact the
date before July 5, 2008, Don Grundmann attended the AIP
State Convention as a delegate and walked out after he
did his normal name calling. Following Grundmann’s walk
out the Convention picked Alan Keyes for President and
Wiley Drake for Vice President.
Back in April, 2008, Jim King vote went to Alan Keyes.
I guess Jim King changed his mind and change who he
was backing for President, because he bolted the American Independent Party and backed the man that wanted
to remove Independent American Party of Nevada at the
Tampa meeting, viz. Chuck Baldwin. Only one delegate
to the Tampa meeting from California vote with Baldwin
on the issue of Independent American Party of Nevada out of the CP.
At the time Nancy Spirkoff was AIP chairperson and she
was “pro-choice”. But no one at Tampa wanted California
out of the party, just Nevada.
The top leadership of the Executive Committee of the CP
are not really anti-abortion like the current pro-life
leadership of the AIP. In fact they gave an award to
“Pro Choice” Nancy Spirkoff. My suggestion to the Independent American Party of Nevada is leave the CP
and join up with the America’s Independent Party.
Sincerly, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
I am not Mr. Seidenberg….but would be honored to be so….that said, I am against slick cons trying to fool American Voters..ala candidate Nightingale….its apparent she and her
henchmen are trying to steal the AIP. they don’t hide their dirty tasks very well….its all over the internet to read. And I will report all the misnformation…and corrupt actions by these carpetbaggers….sincerely D.A.
To Cody Quirk. I have reviewed again what you stated, but I still do not understand you.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American Independent Party.
#20. An Alabama Independent says: “… we need to have… a single “OPEN PRIMARY  . For in a single “Open Primary†the top two candidates go into the general election – or, such can be designed where at least the candidate of each political party with the most votes in the primary – go into the general election. (There then can be such a thing as “top two,†“top three,â€top four,†etc…”
You have mixed the “top two” with the blanket primary. As a nonpartisan system, the “top two” does not include a nominating process, although each party has the option of endorsing candidate(s). And, instead of a “top two,” there could indeed be a “top three,” a “top four,” etc., although I’m not aware of any nonpartisan system having been used other than the “top two.”
In a blanket primary, all candidates of multiple parties are listed on a single primary ballot, and the top vote-getter from each party advances to the general election, where they also face any independent candidates.
Jim Riley and I have frequently mentioned on this site California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), in which the U. S. Supreme Court struck down the state-mandated blanket primary.
In a system of open primaries, each voter picks a party on primary day. Much of the reasoning in Jones also applies to the open primary, which is why I predict that, when a suit challenging the state-mandated open primary reaches the U. S. Supreme Court, the justices will also declare it unconstitutional.
Click here for an article on the various election setups, including the “top two” and the party primary systems. Links to the Jones ruling are featured under “Blanket Primary.”