Oaklandnorth.net, a news project of the University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, has this interview with Laura Wells. Wells was arrested at the October 12 California gubernatorial debate in San Rafael. She wasn’t trying to participate in the debate; she was merely trying to sit in the audience. She was given a ticket. The incident is somewhat reminiscent of Ralph Nader’s experience, trying to be in the audience in a presidential debate in 2000. However, Nader was not arrested, and later the Commission on Presidential Debates sent him a written apology for having barred him from the audience. UPDATE: see this KCRA-TV video of the arrest.
Six of the seven most populous states have minor party or independent candidates on the ballot this year. Of those six states, major party nominees for U.S. Senate, or Governor, or both, have debated at least some of their minor party or independent opponents, in all six states except California. For some reason, major party nominees in California this year are uniquely hostile to the idea of inclusive debates. California last had an inclusive general election debate for Governor in 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom McClintock, Cruz Bustamante, Peter Camejo, and Arianna Huffington debated each other.
On October 13, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in California hosted a debate for the Democratic and Republican nominees for Secretary of State, and did not even announce objective criteria on how they made the decision on whom to invite. Furthermore, the debate was held in a room that was closed to the public. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group did not even inform the other four ballot-listed candidates that the debate was to occur. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group was a primary backer of California’s Proposition 14 in June, which will go into effect in 2012 and will have the impact of confining California’s November ballot to only Democrats and Republicans.
In October 2003, the gubernatorial election was part of the recall. It was not a general election. Nonetheless the situation was similar to what may occur under Proposition 14, where all candidates regardless of their party affiliation would appear on a single ballot.
In June 2010, there were 25 candidates on the the various gubernatorial primary ballot, 8 of whom received more than 1% of the total vote. Arianna Huffington only received 0.6% of the vote in 2003, though she might have polled higher. So it might be expected that independent and minor party candidates would qualify under an objective standard. Not-for-profit groups that sponsor debates risk loss of their tax exempt status if they do not formally set objective criteria in advance of the debate.
Have you had a chance to read the intervenor answer to the 1st amended complaint in Fields v Bowen?
In October 2003, the gubernatorial election was part of the recall. It was not a general election. Nonetheless the situation was similar to what may occur under Proposition 14, where all candidates regardless of their party affiliation would appear on a single ballot.
In June 2010, there were 25 candidates on the the various gubernatorial primary ballot, 8 of whom received more than 1% of the total vote. Arianna Huffington only received 0.6% of the vote in 2003, though she might have polled higher. So it might be expected that independent and minor party candidates would qualify under an objective standard. Not-for-profit groups that sponsor debates risk loss of their tax exempt status if they do not formally set objective criteria in advance of the debate.
Have you had a chance to read the intervenor answer to the 1st amended complaint in Field v Bowen?
The comparison between the October 2003 gubernatorial election and the first stage of a top-two system is utterly false. The first stage of a top-two system is not an election, because no one can get elected at the first stage. It is only a screening mechanism to end candidacies. By contrast, the October 2003 event was an election.
Any single winner district under plurality voting is bad for representational government.
It’s kind of like you all are always arguing over which kind of poison you’ll be swallowing.
You ought to invest your time in 100-member districts, they’re so much more constructive. Hey, I may not have taken it far by myself, but at least my name IS a multi-billion dollar gateway! GoOgle!
They derived from by initials/email address joogle in October of 1997. The number is actually spelled googol, but because of the US Parliament, they misspelled it. Pretty cool eh? Look how much money they made, and my name is a household name!
http://www.usparliament.org/parpar.htm
(If ya got it, flaunt it!)
Pingback: Phew! « Piece Of Mind
#3 Was the event in October 2003, a “general election”? At least you aren’t claiming it was a “November election”.
Was it a “debate” before the October 1987 gubernatorial event in Louisiana when Buddy Roemer made his famous “slay the dragon” remark? Was that October event a “general election”?
In the debate before the October 2003 recall election in California, not all candidates participated (there were actually two debates. The first had Peter Uebberoth, but not Arnold Schwarzenegger. But most of the 135 on-ballot candidates were excluded. So it might not be that all candidates would participate in a debate before the primary election but there is no reason that candidates who prefer a minor party, “qualified” or not, or those who had no party preference might not participate in a debate.
Have you had a chance to read the intervenor answer to the 1st amended complaint in Field v Bowen?
All of you “7” who responded (actually Jim Riley responded 3 times and Single Winner District responded twice , so it is only 4 of you) are part of the real problem. You spent the entire posting arguing over “technicalities” of whether the October 2003 Recall Election was an election or not. Why didn’t someone arrange for the other 3 third party candidates to attempt to sit in the audience at San Rafael? Why weren’t their supporters there to support them?
It is this “spineless” attitude by 3rd party leaders which makes me almost want to give up completely on ballot access and equality for 3rd party and independent candidates. I have said it before, and I’ll say it again, until this battle becomes a “civil rights” movement, we’re never going to accomplish anything. Why can’t you folks see this?
A bit confusing.
Was the event a *public forum* ???
If *YES*, then an obvious MAJOR false/illegal arrest of Ms. Wells — to go after the MORONS involved for damages and bankrupt them.
I was at the first debate in Moranga, which was the first U.S. Senate debate, organized by Marsha Feinland and attended by some 30 Peace and Freedom Party members. I was also at the first Gubernatorial debate in Davis with Carlos Alvarez the Peace and Freedom Party nominee for Governor and about a dozen supporters. There were also members of the American Independent Party there as well. They like to call themselves Constition Party. Unfortunately neither Marsha nor Carlos had tickets to enter the invitation only events.
#8 Part of the problem, is there is little or no central hub for organizing. I have been in touch with Laura Wells [Green] via email for almost six months myself. I have called here repeatedly on the telephone. And I went to the Free and Equal Foundation’s fundraiser and talked to her and her fiance’ Mr. Chas Goodwin. I asked “Why is she so hard to contact?” And the reply was something like her campaign manager quit and she was too busy.
Yet apparently MP Richard Winger [Libertarian] and/or his candidate that he’s campaign manager for, Christina Tobin [Independent] have access and influence because Wells was invited and appeared at the $100. per head Free and Equal Party.
It’s a lot like a comedy of errors is all I can tell you.
But of the 42 ballot qualified state candidates in California who did respond to my email/phone calls about using a ranked voting system for decisions and elections, several did reply by marking the eballots and they are posted in the forum.
In regards to CT Weber’s remark about AIP, I must remind him that some are voting on ranked eballots, along with him, and the are Beliz [AIP] for state Controller, Templin [AIP] for Attorney General and Nightingale [Constitution/Independent] for Governor.
In addition, Merton Short [American Independent/Constitution] has been funny, and responding to emails and calls, and he’s running for Secretary of State. However he is very ill, at age 87, with a serious inner ear infection.
While Laura Wells [Green] is a very nice person, she just doesn’t show any inclination to a parliamentary form of cooperation.
Debates of those vying for single winner districts is not a way to show people working together to find solutions. They are more of a show of single winner power grabbers, trying to make themselves appear better than any other one name. I don’t see any thing constructive in debates by those seeking single winner seats in any election myself.
To Single Winner District. You are so right! No organizational cooperation. Each little fiefdom wants to do it themselves. The way each see’s it, their 3rd party is the ONLY 3rd party and we’ll do it ourselves. They are their own worst enemies. I sort of thought BAN was the one group all could rally behind, but apparetly BAN doesn’t have any persuation either. So sad. So sad.
Private groups can invite whomever they want to a private meeting.
Still SOME freedom to associate and NOT associate.
To Demo Rep. Still, the debate was aired over public airways. If they had not broadcast it in any fashion over public airways, I would agree with you. Public airways were used to “discriminate” against legitimate candidates. This is what make this an issue.