This year, the ballot-qualified Arizona Green Party, which is required under state law to nominate by primary, has in influx of candidates who are apparently not bona fide Greens, and who have refused to meet with Green Party activists and leaders. There is evidence that political consultants who are associated with Republicans recruited these candidates. See this blog post.
In 1951, the National Municipal League, which is now called the National Civic League, published a booklet, “A Model Direct Primary System.” It was written by Dr. Joseph P. Harris, at that time the nation’s leading authority on election administration. His book says that states should let qualified small parties nominate by convention, not primary. The book says primaries for small qualified parties is a waste of taxpayer money. Furthermore, as this 2010 incident shows, small qualified parties themselves are better off if state law permits them to nominate by convention. If Arizona let the Green Party nominate by convention, the party wouldn’t be having this problem.
IN the AIP Bill Lussenheide for congress ca-45 only joined the AIP to bring it back to the “constitution party” because CP is not ballot qualified. I have read on blogs where this was his intent, he also, does not want to be in the AIP but only use the “affirmative action” ballot slot that the party provides. He is a simple window washer, that has tried to pole vault his aspirations, to become a somebody. Many have tried this before, the county that he lives in have not paid attention to his vain attempt. Mary Bona Mack will win in a landslide for the republican party.
The recent AIP state meeting in Ontario had 60 people attending the banquet. The other faction’s state meeting in Sacramento in June only had 15 people in attendance.
The Model stuff is totally obsolete.
P.R. and App.V.
NO caucuses, conventions and primaries are needed.
Another aspect to the Arizona situation is that state law permits independents and registrants of unqualified parties to vote in the primary of their choice; so a small party like the Greens is vulnerable to “swamping” by non-member voters.
The Libertarian Party won an exemption from this law (AZ Libertarian v. Brewer, 2007), and the Republicans have made noises about filing suit against the law.
Nonsense –
Why must one always assume the negative.
These new Green Party candidates should be assumed to be sincere, until during their campaign proven otherwise.
The Green Party has always had conservatives, centrist, even libertarian Green Party folk.
Good to see these new Green Party candidates.
Let the voters judge them, on the ballot, on their merits as Green Party candidates.
This old narrowly defined Green Party candidate ideology is useless and counter productive.
Let’s encourage these new Green Party candidates, whether conservative, centrists or otherwise as Green Party candidates..
Insincere political operatives acting on behalf of either major parties should be exposed.
Political pluralism requires public commitment and community organizing, not stealth candidacies and astroturfed consultancy campaigns.
That’s obvious.
The Arizona party is an embarrassment to U.S. Greens for allowing this situation to happen. They should not have gotten ballot status without first having candidates for governor and other offices if they knew the law. If they didn’t know the law, shame on them. Either way, they are ‘green’ in the sense that they are political neophytes. They have given a black eye to the Green Party by running candidates who are right-wingers, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-GLBT, climate change deniers. They may be sincere, but their stupidity makes them seem like they can’t be trusted to be in office if they can’t control their own nominating process.
This clearly demonstrates that we need a complete revamp of election law in the US. As for the comments of Oregon Green, I think it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding. Greens are between a rock and a hard place. I applaud the AZ Greens getting ballot status. It is hard work and worthwhile. That we then become subject to these actions by outsiders is NOT the fault of AZ Greens. Oregon Green is shooting the messenger and doing it from an unrealistic political perspective.
This sort of situation would not occur under Top 2.
NO primaries.
Direct [general]election ballot access via equal nominating petitions — i.e. ONE *election* only.
P.R. and App.V.
The 2010 Model Election Law.
I don’t agree with comment #9. Top-two makes the problem even worse. There are already rumors that some Republicans in Washington state this year ran in some legislative districts with “I prefer the Democratic Party”, and some of them got into the November election. Even if the Democratic Party had advance warning, the top-two law gives the Democratic Party no relief except to advertise against the offending candidates.
#11 How many ran as a write-in candidates and qualified ahead of a “legitimate” candidate?
I recently became interested in the system that I believe is used in Louisiana where there is a rating system basically. You have all the people running for office and rate them a 1-5 on what your choices would be. Sounds like a great way to work things.
#13: Louisiana has nonpartisan elections, popularly called “open primaries.” All candidates, including independents, are listed on a single ballot, and the voter gets one choice per office. If no one gets 50%-plus, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, meet in a runoff.
Washington state has the same system, except that there is ALWAYS a runoff. Assuming that the courts permit it, California will begin using a system like WA’s in 2012.
It sounds like you’re talking about ranked choice voting, which Louisiana does NOT have. I understand ranked choice is used in some places for local elections.