Over half the states in which major party gubernatorial and U.S. Senate candidates have debated each other have included at least one minor party or independent candidate in those debates. However, this year in California, no statewide candidate debates between the major party nominees have included any minor party or independent candidates.
On October 6, the California minor party gubernatorial candidates held a press conference in Sacramento, to publicize the idea that California is behind the remainder of the country. The event was sponsored by Free & Equal. See this Sacramento Bee story.
The November 1 print edition of Ballot Access News will list the states and debates that have been inclusive, for statewide office.
What effect does ANY debate have on the gerrymander math in the gerrymander Congress and the gerrymander State legislatures ???
Really, you’d think they’d be looking for ways to work together, rather then ways to separate.
If you’d look in the USA Parliament, Inc.’s forum, you’ll see many of the 42 names for state office did work together under the tool called a ranked ballot;
http://www.usparliament.org/forum/
But MP Richard Winger’s [Libertarian] candidate MSP Christina Tobin was one who said she was “not interested” in working together under a ranked ballot.
I guess their idea of working together, is debating?
I can understand that maybe before the ranked ballot is distributed…but to decline the participation in a ranked ballot among all 42 candidates, and then to try to organize a “back to back US Senate and CA Gov debate on October 28th … four days before the election…now, that’s what I call counter productive.
You throw away a chance to work together as a seven member team (Gov through Insurance Commish), and then try to put together a debate…a scramble for a single winner district…
Single winner districts are for egotist power grabbers!
I’m for coordinating as a an inclusive team. MP Winger just doesn’t have what it takes.
He might do a good job on reporting all the injustices in plurality elections…virtually every election in the US. But he’s lousy as a campaign manager.
…and MP Winger [Libertarian] is terrible as a moderator too…he censored so much good stuff I wrote about the US Parliament…maybe he never saw Usenet? THAT was uncensored! That’s where the USA Parliament, Inc. was founded in 1995. That’s where I started the USA Parliament voting with 125 US Prez candidates, from 25 parties. And that’s where Google derived the idea from my email address at the time, which was Joogle, my initials.
Why do you think they called it Google? Because they copied my personal logo, and misspelled googol.
Because they liked what I had going on and the ball of activity created by free speech, and the all party system.
Sergey Brin, then a student at Stanford asked “What is a joogle?” The rest is history…but Google bought Usenet, touched it up and deleted the part about when they were founded.
That’s information Google doesn’t want you to know.
That was 1995, the year after I ran for CA Gov with the Green Party, live in Usenet. (Remember, Windows 95 wasn’t until the next year)
And for those who weren’t there, before the USA Parliament, Inc. started, the tone in Usenet was about violent revolution. It’s the voting phenomena created by The USA Parliament, Inc., also registered as a Federal Elections Commission PAC on August 1st, 1995, that helped change the tone of the Internet to one of voting instead of violent revolution.
I guess ignorant people like the Taliban and Al Qaeda don’t know about pure proportional representation (PR).
Which reminds me, I just signed the USA Parliament, Inc., a link in Wikipedia, under proportional representation today!
Just to clarify the dates, my name was in the Green Party’s California primary in early 1994, and I lost in the primary.
I started promoting the “First Internet US Presidential Preference Ballot” in early 1995. There was two or maybe three cycles, originally the election cycles were every six months.
Six months is a long time in Internet time.
Google started in October of 1997.
In 1995, I wrote as many of the 125 nominated US Prez candidates that I could, to get statements, including Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Colin Powell, Fidel Castro, etc., etc. I don’t remember the exact dates in 1995, but I also sent each candidate a pretty nice hemp paper ballot with all 125 names and instructions on ranked voting. …been doing it every year, but I don’t use hemp paper anymore, too costly.
But I do have every single ballot cast, and a copy of every single “eballot” cast, as proof. (Just in case anyone actually wants to know, which is probably unlikely)
Richard calls all the candidates major party and minor party candidates.
I call them all, individuals with a word by their name.
I don’t know what’s worse; Milnes and his PLAS psychosis or Ogle and his role playing game. Surely there must be a better gaming space for you, Ogle, to go play US Parliament. Why not set up an online game instead of prattle here?
Of course Seidenberg or the Keyes faction of the AIP wouldn’t be protesting this at all; they support minor party exclusion.
Deran- Right on!