Ralph Nader was an independent presidential candidate in 2008, and he did not seek the nomination of any nationally-organized party. But he did seek out the nomination of various parties that are just organized in one state. Also, in a few states, for pragmatic ballot-access purposes, he created new one-state parties.
In eight states, parties that nominated Nader are now ballot-qualified. The pre-existing parties are the Peace & Freedom Party of California, the Independent Party of Connecticut, the Independent Party of Delaware, the Ecology Party of Florida, and the Natural Law Party of Michigan. The parties created by Nader in 2008 are the Independent Party of Maryland, the Independent Party of New Mexico, and the Peace Party of Oregon. Two other parties created by Nader, the Independent Party of Hawaii and the Peace & Freedom Party of Iowa, are not now ballot-qualified because they didn’t poll enough votes.
So, the Peace Party of Oregon and Inpendent Parties of NM and Maryland are ballot qualified? This is good news indeed. Did any of Nader’s parties he created for ballot access in 2004 maintain ballot access?
Because Ralph Nader received more than 1% of the statewide Oregon vote in the presidential election, the Peace Party is now qualified to place its candidates on all ballots for partisan office in Oregon through the November 2010 general election.
Nader earned 1.01% of the votes cast in Oregon for U.S. President, just under 18,000.
Did the Cali P&F party maintain ballot access through somebody else?
In 2004 Nader created the Populist Party in Maryland. They only ran one candidate – a Nader staffer who ran for Governor in 2006 – and never attempted to regain ballot access via petition. I suspect the same thing will happen with the Independent Party, unless they get an incredible spike in registration due to people thinking they are registering as an ‘independent’ instead of ‘unaffiliated,’ which would be the proper box to check on the voter registration application.
In California, qualified parties get a free pass in presidential election years, as long as they keep their registration above one-fifteenth of 1%.
Jason there were no other P&F Candidates that were listed statewide. But that really isn’t a factor as political parties will not be evaluated again until after the 2010 Election which will have a host of statewide offices open including Govenor Lt Govenor as well as both US Senate Seats that will be up.
Running a visible campaign in 2008, which P&F did, is far more critical to the outcome of the 2010 races than most realize. When voters hit the polls in 2010 they will remember P&F ran Nader whereas Cynthia McKinney will be long forgotten.
As bad as the results were for Nader and P&F the Greens may have sealed their fate with this year’s campaign. McKinney only polled 20,000 votes in California. With half the votes coming from outside the Party that leaves them with 10,000 Greens that actual voted for their own candidate. When you consider the Greens have 135,000 registrants their internal support for their owm candidate is .074%. That is lower than the at large support for Nader from the entire electorate. It’s easy to see the CA Green Party Voter Rolls collapsing over the next 2 years.
Didn’t a ton of parties in Oregon get access through the Attorney General’s race?
So, which party should try to take over some of the leftover Nader parties? I think there’s quite a few national parties without qualifications in Maryland.
I don’t imagine it would be that easy in Maryland – the Independent Party does have ballot access but not major party status, so it is not entitled to a state-run primary that anyone could declare a candidacy for. Party leadership decisions, candidate selection, and other decisions must be approved by the state party officers, who are surely devoted Nader supporters.
New York State demanded that Uncle Ralph set up a state wide party from scratch. Duh! So they called it the uninspired ‘Progressives’ and used the Buffalo/ American Bison as their animal mascot.
Duh! They were advised, repeatedly, to use the moniker ‘Naders Raiders’ with a head shot of Uncle Ralph for their official symbol.
Hello, hello, wake up, wake up……..
Any one know their P2008 motto? A recycle of their tired uninspiring ‘Declare your independence’?
[How much alcohol, pot is allowed at their staff meetings……]
————–Donald Raymond Lake
Correction for Oregon: The Peace Party must also maintain voter registration equal to 1/10 of 1% the number of total votes in the most recent race for Governor. That amounts to about 1400 registrants that the Peace Party must obtain by the summer of 2010.
Any chance that the Peace Party of Oregon will affiliate with the Peace and Freedom Party of California. I would hope that all the independent leftist parties eventually form one national organization.
Laine, I couldn’t agree more. This is what I’ve been advocating for years. One “progressive” party, one “socialist” party, and one “communist” party.
I think the OR and CA parties would need to harmonize their platforms somewhat to accomplish that. A lot of the rhetoric in the current California Peace & Freedom platform is held over from the 1970s and uses language really out of place in today’s world. Oregon’s platform is moving in the right direction, but it needs some fleshing out.
Bob:
In 2010, the only U.S. Senate seat that will be up for election in California is Barbara Boxer’s. Dianne Feinstein is being talked about to run for governor in 2010 but I assume she will not resign from the Senate unless she wins that race. The only way a state can have both Senate seats up at the same time is if at least one of the seats is involved in a special election.
Also, if Nader received 10,000 votes out of the 135,000 Green registrants in California, that would be 7.4%, not 0.074%.
Laine Says:
November 10th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Any chance that the Peace Party of Oregon will affiliate with the Peace and Freedom Party of California. I would hope that all the independent leftist parties eventually form one national organization.
Phil Sawyer responds:
It will all be a little more clear after we hear what Mr. Nader and Mr. Gonzalez think the correct path is for us to take. I do know, however, that the Peace and Freedom Party of California will not be part of a national party that does not have the same platform that it has.
Phil, One state parties that would be open to starting a national party would not have to have the same platform that the Peace and Freedom Party of California has, however, there are five issues that need to be addressed. Peace and Freedom Party of California has a deep commitment to democracy, feminism, racial harmoney, environmentalism, and of course, socialism. In other words, a commitment to economic and social justice. If parties can agree on these basic points, a national party can be established. The Peace and Freedom Party has formed a national organizing committee to access the possibility of a national Peace and Freedom Party. Those who agree with the basic ideas outlined above are certainly welcome.
Thank you, C.T., for the clarification. Isn’t there another major issue: the plank about gay and lesbian rights, and so forth?
There is one other thing that I would like to add to what I wrote (in 15.) above: I also want to hear what Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente have to say about all of this. Ms. McKinney did seek the presidential nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party of California this year – and she stated that she agrees with our whole plafform.
If P&F is going to start currying favor with McKinney, then count me out. Her campaign was a cruel joke and her quest for the P&F nomination was entirely designed to keep Nader off the ballot, since she had already swindled the Green Party of CA out of theirs.
And CT, isn’t it possible for someone to be in favor of social justice and egalitarianism, and still against socialism? I don’t want the government to own my local coffee shop, if it’s all the same to yo.