The February 26 issue of the Sunshine News mentions the possibility that former Congressman Virgil Goode may be the Constitution Party’s presidential nominee here. The mention is at the bottom of the “Presidential Derby” column written by Kevin Derby. The Sunshine News is an electronic newspaper in Florida.
The question that I would like to know is will Mr. Goode
be running in California on the Constitution Party? Reason on October 18, 2010 the Constitution Party registration was at 163 electors. While the registration of the American Independent Party was at
413,032 electors.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
For the Constitution Party to be ballot qualified in California for the February 7, 2012 Presidential Election it need a registration of Constitution Party
electors at 103,004 by September 6, 2011. On October 18, 2010 the electors registered in the Constitution Party was 163 elector.
Mr. Goode can get on the California Ballot also by petition with 1,030,040 valid petition signatures.
Is Mr. Goode relying on Mr. Odom to get him qualified
in California? That due date is September 25, 2011.
Good luck Gary!
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Former congressman don’t seem to do well running on a third party ticket. Bob Barr still received over 500,000 voteson the Libertarian ticket and I think Barr is more well known then Mr Goode.
But Goode has changed party affiliation more often.
The question that I would like to know is will Mr. Goode
be running in California on the Constitution Party? Reason on October 18, 2010 the Constitution Party registration was at 163 electors. While the registration of the American Independent Party was at
413,032 electors.
= I remember how you and Markham used to bitch about people being AIP because of the name all the time.
If you guys happen to pick Todd Palin as your prez. nominee, then don’t expect him to be on the ballot in Nevada or even in the two-thirds majority of state ballots.
BTW, when comparing party registration statistics, the IAP makes up 4.5% of all Nevada registered voters, according to the latest numbers, while the AIP in California makes up only 2.3% of all California registered voters, according to the last statistics listed on the California SoS’s website, so despite the numbers, that’s actually disappointing for the AIP.
Maybe if you stop attacking and excluding your own party members from your meetings and leadership positions- you might actually get somewhere in California politics, but all the infighting has made the AIP the ‘Sick Man of California Third Party Politics’.
And Mr. Odom is focused on Pennsylvania and the East, so take off your tin foil hat and stop blaming him for the sun not shining in your pathetic state.
@1 Who said anything about California? Baldwin wasn’t on in California either, yet he still ran and did relatively well for a Constitution Party presidential candidate nationwide. 90% or so of Americans don’t live in California, and many of them couldn’t care less what goes on there.
@2 over a million signatures? Are you sure? That sounds off to me.
@3 Correct.
@5 So it’s actually legal for them to force Todd Palin or someone to run on their ballot even if he actively objects?
If so, that oversight in the election laws needs to be fixed.
Paulie,
What oversight? There was no oversight? That is what William Shearer wanted. He drafted the law.
In 1872, Fredrick Douglass went on the ballot for Vice
President without his permission. Then voted for U.S.
Grant that year.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Cody Quirk
I have never exclude any member of the State Central Committee from a meeting. I have never excluded any
member of the County Central Committee.
The problem in crashers.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
I have never exclude any member of the State Central Committee from a meeting. I have never excluded any
member of the County Central Committee.
= You’re a liar.
The problem in crashers.
= Correct, especially those crashers that kick out those that have been in the AIP since 1967.
What oversight? There was no oversight? That is what William Shearer wanted. He drafted the law.
= But Bill would never stick somebody on the ballot without his/her permission, however. And such laws were already in existence and he simply worked to change the laws for the AIP’s benefit.
Third parties in the US are losers because of a lack of Proportional Representation. Even Approval Voting might be a big help in some cases. Under the current system, the building of alternative intentional communities-in some ways emulating the Amish and Ultra-Orthodox Jews-seems a better route to gaining some degree of self-determination. You just have to be careful not to incur the wrath of the ATF,FBI or the many other intrusive govt organs.
Or you can just look at it as a hobby.
Cody Quirk
I am not lying. I have no idea what you are talking about. Lawrence Beliz joined the AIP in 1968. He
is the only old time AIP member on the State Central
Committee.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
P.S. Why can’t Todd Palin be on the ballot in Nevada?
“I am not lying. I have no idea what you are talking about. Lawrence Beliz joined the AIP in 1968. He
is the only old time AIP member on the State Central
Committee.”
= Again, I do not believe you. That meeting in which the AIP “disaffiliated” from the Constitution Party was NOT announced to all members of the State Central Committee, in fact I don’t think it was announced to the majority of members at all- but that’s a prime example of what I am talking about.
While I won’t go as far as Don Grundmann in badmouthing you, I still accuse you of being of bad character, a political saboteur, and a backstabber. You have yet to convince me otherwise.
“P.S. Why can’t Todd Palin be on the ballot in Nevada?”
= For one, the IAP will never have him on the ballot, and another- any operatives that you have in this state cannot collect enough signatures to put him on the ballot, especially since he won’t be running for President in the first place.
#9, there were no government-printed ballots in the U.S. in 1872. There were just private ballots.
Richard Winger,
You are correct in #10. Fredrick Douglass voted for U.S. Grant on the Electorial College from New York in
1872. That is history.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Richard Winger
As for Fredrick Douglass. He was elected to the Electorial College in 1872 and vote for U. S. Grant for
President that December.
He registered to vote in New York State as a “person
of colour” under the New York Constitution of 1841 with its double standard of having a $250 value in property
and three year a citizen of New York State, while white
voters did not have to own property or be in the state
longer than 10 day.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Cody Quirk
Are you telling me that you are backing the claimed (sic.) Chairman of the 163 member stong Constitution
Party of California, viz., Dr. Donald “Everything is a
Fake” Grundmann for President of the United States in
2012 in Nevada at the IAP Presidential Convention?
Who in addition to you is backing Dr. Grundmann in Nevada for that office among the IAP leadership?
Are you also telling me that no one in the IAP would
want Todd Palin the President of the United States.
He is not a Republican, had read the AIP platform of
2006 and agreed with it.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Are you telling me that you are backing the claimed (sic.) Chairman of the 163 member stong Constitution
Party of California, viz., Dr. Donald “Everything is a
Fake” Grundmann for President of the United States in
2012 in Nevada at the IAP Presidential Convention?
= With how you interpret people’s words, it is obvious that the inside of your head is nothing but a hollow shell where a brain is supposed to be.
Who in addition to you is backing Dr. Grundmann in Nevada for that office among the IAP leadership?
= Again, when you actually get a clue, along with some sanity as well, please re-word your question.
Are you also telling me that no one in the IAP would
want Todd Palin the President of the United States.
= He’s not running for president and prefers to keep quiet on politics; plus his political experience is very poor when compared to his wife. Are you telling me that you would want to put a man into the white house that doesn’t want to be president and also lacks the political experience to govern a country?
He is not a Republican, had read the AIP platform of
2006 and agreed with it.
= But is he a true Constitutionalist? Does he support non-interventionism in foreign policy and also support getting America out of the UN?
Mark Seidenberg,
What oversight? There was no oversight? That is what William Shearer wanted. He drafted the law.
The oversight is if the state has not already made such a practice illegal, they should fix that oversight as soon as possible and prevent you by law from placing anyone on the ballot who actively objects to being placed on your ballot. Ideally, you should have to get their active permission to put them on the ballot as well, but at the very bare minimum they should be allowed to opt out. It is very important that this mistake in the existing law be corrected before the next election, if in fact that is the current law.
All this talking back and forth and no one has answered fairly simple questions;
1) Does the current state law in California allow political parties to put someone on the ballot even over their active objection?
2) If this is indeed the law, has anyone made an active move to fix such a glaringly outrageous oversight in the legal code?
3) Is Mr. Seidenberg correct in @2 when he claims an independent presidential candidate in California needs over a million signatures to get on the ballot?
BTW…where’s Mr. Grundmann? I’ve noticed he has not been around to do his usual back and forth repetitive song and dance routine with Mr. Seidenberg lately.
#22, the current California law for president has not changed. Independent presidential candidates in California need a petition of 1% of the number of registered voters, due in August. For 2012, that is 172,859 signatures. Qualified parties place their presidential nominees on the ballot by telling the Secretary of State whom to list. Prop. 14 indirectly changed presidential elections by making it far more difficult for parties to remain ballot-qualified, but that aspect doesn’t really start until November 2014.
In 2010, several California legislators were asked to introduce a bill to ease the independent presidential petition, but they all refused. Even the one independent state legislator, Assemblyman Arambula, refused. He was term-limited out and is no longer in the legislature.
Richard Winger,
How did you come up with 172,859 signatures? My count
was running at 103,004 for the event on September 6, 2011 or 1,030,040 for September 25, 2011, I know how
I came up with my figure. How did you come up with
your figure.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Richard Winger
Their is very little that Secretary of State Bowen and
I agree with. I just now look on her website the following, so we agree on this:
“To qualify a new political party by petition requires
that 1,030,040 persons sign a petition seeking the
inclusion of a proposed party in the party nomination process…”
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, Amewrican Independent Party
Paulie,
I never stated in # 2, what you claimed in #22. Please
correct your statement on what I said in #2.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
#24, see section 8400.
Richard Winger
I was well aware of California Election Code 8400 et seq. What would happen if your if 53 of the 55 electors will be elected by district. Would not the
53 Congressional Districts require the 3 persent rule?
Bottom line we do not know when or how AB 80 will effect
the date of the Presidential primary or if there will
be number of days required between that primary and the
general election to kick in section 8400 and the 3 percent rule. Why not tell paulie, it is now to early
to tell.
Since, I was talking about the Constitution Party and
not independent runs for presidential electors, I do not
see how the independently elected presidential electors
effect the numbers of petition signatures for getting
the Constitution Party on the ballot by September 25,
2011 if AB 80 does not make date changes.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Richard Winger,
the current California law for president has not changed. Independent presidential candidates in California need a petition of 1% of the number of registered voters, due in August. For 2012, that is 172,859 signatures. Qualified parties place their presidential nominees on the ballot by telling the Secretary of State whom to list. Prop. 14 indirectly changed presidential elections by making it far more difficult for parties to remain ballot-qualified, but that aspect doesn’t really start until November 2014.
Thanks, that’s what I thought.
Mark Seidenberg,
Obviously, if the Constitution Party had to choose between getting ~100 thousand voter registrations, getting ~ 172 thousand valid signatures to get their national presidential candidate on as an independent, or getting over a million valid signatures to get that candidate on with the Constitution Party label, no sane person would expect them to go the last route. If they have the kind of money it takes to get over a million valid signatures, they would be both stupid and insane not to spend it on getting the 100 k voter registrations plus, say, 25k margin so as to earn long-term ballot status for their future presidential candidates as well.
It didn’t occur to me that you would suggest anything so ridiculous.
My deepest apologies for underestimating your capacity for such things. I should have known better.
In reality, unless they get a very well known presidential candidate, by my estimate they don’t have the organizational ability to meet any of those three hurdles. Their best chance for having their presidential candidate on the ballot in California is to prevail in their ongoing lawsuits and reclaim control over your existing AIP ballot line.
However, as previously noted, Baldwin wasn’t on in California either, yet he still ran and did relatively well for a Constitution Party presidential candidate nationwide. 90% or so of Americans don’t live in California, and many of them couldn’t care less what goes on there.
We really should stop making everything about California, but, while we are still on California:
1) Does the current state law in California allow political parties to put someone on the ballot even over their active objection?
2) If this is indeed the law, has anyone made an active move to fix such a glaringly outrageous oversight in the legal code?
Paulie
I do not think you understand the big picture here.
If AB80 passes the will be a major change in dates.
Also, if California adopts the Nebraska-Maine plan
the number of signatures will go up over four times
the number.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
P.S. You talk of the Contitution Party has ongoing lawsuits in the plural. The only lawsuit I heard about
was KING v. ROBINSON and the next hearing will be
on March 11, 2011 in Fairfield, CA. What additional
lawsuit are you talking about?
Paulie,
Do you think it would be easier to get one registration
form filed out to a party that few people head of, vs.
10 signatures to a document where they only require a
signature and address. I had a vary hard time getting
either. The most I ever got in one day was 32 signatures.
I remember in 2010, Chelene Nightingales campaign manager turned in signatures in San Bernadino County
to get her on the ballot for governor. After I looked
at the signatures submitted a full 50% were no good.
Therefore, one has to get lots of overage signatures
in the collections process. Even if one goes the
route of getting 1,030,040 valid signatures, there is
still the additional requirement to get a min. number
of registered elector in the Constitution Party.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
@ 30 No idea about any of that. I’ll trust whatever Richard Winger says about that, he’s usually on the money.
@ 31 My personal record for registering voters with a non-duopoly California political party is over 250 in one day. Two other people were with me and we did about 900 total just that day on one college. I’ve done over 1,000 a week personally. However, I’d call anything over 50 regs a day a decent day.
For signatures, I’ve gotten over 400 a day before for getting alternative parties on the ballot, and I know some people that have gotten way more than that. I’ve heard of over people having thousand signature days, but that’s very rare. 100-200 is a more typical day.
As far as validity rate, me and my friends usually validate in the 80% plus range and sometimes 90% plus.
Richard Winger
This is reminding me of the mayorial race at Tivoli on the Hudson, New York in the year 1900.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
I must admit, I know nothing of the Tivoli, New York, mayor’s race of 1900.
But Jim Riley probably does.
This is why the Constitution Party has so much trouble getting anywhere, and I’m even a supporter of the Constitution Party.
Richard Winger
The mayorial race in 1900 relates to a dispute started at a dinner party in Washington DC in 1866 over some poems by Major Arent Schuyler de Peyster. The 1900 race
for mayor of Tivoli on the Hudson, New York was between
the incumbent mayor (former Colonel) Johnston L. de Peyster and his 79 year old father Major General John Watts de Peyster Sr. During the War Between The States,
Johnston L. de Peyster, was a famous war hero to most
Unionist, because he was the man that “took Richmond”
for President Abraham Lincoln, viz., hoisting the Stars
and Strips over the Capitol of the Confederate States
of America.
The dispute heated up in 1880 at the Republican Convention in Chicago between the Half Breeds and
the Stalwarts and continued until the 1900 race for
mayor of Tivoli on the Hudson, New York.
I suggest you read the following two books two start
with: 1) James Barnet Fry’s THE CONKLING AND BLAINE-FRY CONTROVERSY, IN 1866: The Outbreak Of A Lifelong
Feud Between The Two Great Statesman, Roscoe Conkling
and James G. Blaine; 2)Keaneth D. Ackerman’s DARK HORSE: The Surprise Election And Political Murder Of
President James A. Garfield.
Both these books were give to me by my late friend, William Shearer, who told me of the events leading up
to the election in 1900 in Tivoli, New York.
Due you think it would be wise now to explain the STALWARTS and HALF BREEDS now before, I continue?
My guess is that you and Jim Riley know who the
Stalwarts and Half Breeds are. I just not sure
about the other readers of these postings.
I remember at Valley Forge in 2004 at the Constitution
Party Convention Shearer and I had a discussion on the
Stalwarts and Half Breeds and delegates would look at
us like we were from outspace. William Shearer could
rattle off the vote count from all 36 ballots by state
for the 1880 Republican Convention and he did.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
Jordon M. Greene
Was your statement at # 36 related to #35 about Jim Riley?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
My interest in the de Peyster family history goes back to the reading in 1963 a paper that Major General John Watts de Peyster gave at the New York Historical
Society on March 3rd 1857 entitled “The Dutch at the
North Pole”.
Two other works by General de Peyster got my attention
at the time, because of there historical connections
to issues I was involved in, viz., 1)Keeping the United
State Department of State from turning over United
States island territories to the USSR and the Tuvalu;
2) Keeping the history of sessions from the United States alive.
As to issue #2 above. General de Payster also wrote
“Secession in Switzerland and the United States Compared”.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
No, my statement was related to nearly all of your posts. I don’t have the time to fuss, and I’ve had my fair share of those in the Party and they are pointless to pursue. Just my thought, my opinion on the matter, nothing more, nothing less.
Seidenberg is not in the Constitution Party.
Paulie
First thank you for the statement. I am not in the
Contitution Party at present. However in 2008, I was
a paid member of Constitution Party’s National Committee
and elected head of the California’s Delegation to the
2008 National Constitution Party’s Convention in Kansas City.
As a third reading, I suggest John Watts de Peyster Sr.’s, SECESSION IN SWITZERLAND AND THE UNITED STATES
COMPARED; the annual address, delivered Oct. 20th 1863,
before the Vermont State Historical Society in the Hall
of Representives [SIC] Capitol, Montpelier. ISBN-10:
1429722742.
At the time of this address John Watts de Peyster held
the rank of Adj. General. In 1866 he became a Major
General.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman, American Independent Party
ALL of the anti-Democracy stuff in ALL prior elections is absolutely a waste of time and effort to write about — except in order to bring up Democracy reforms.
REAL Democracy NOW —
P.R. and App.V.
I remember in 2010, Chelene Nightingales campaign manager turned in signatures in San Bernadino County
to get her on the ballot for governor. After I looked
at the signatures submitted a full 50% were no good.
= You claim I’m supporting Don Grundmann for President, so I highly doubt your ability to judge signatures.
And Chelene got third place in the election and put Ed Noonan’s 2006 campaign for Governor to shame.