Several days ago, Matt Gonzalez (Ralph Nader’s running mate this year) said he was switching his registration from “Green” to “independent” to avoid ballot access problems in Idaho, Oregon and Delaware. It turns out that Idaho would not have disqualified Gonzalez from appearing on the general election ballot as an independent, on the basis that he is a registered Green. Gonzalez had received misinformation about Idaho.
It doesn’t matter, Nader is not seeking the Green Party. Nader is making a big mistake. Lost my vote and I voted for him in 2000 & 2004.
It’s irrelevant to me. I’ll be backing Nader, as he’ll be the only really visible progressive campaign this year.
Or, does Gonzalez leaving the GP indicate something else abt the the GP? I suspect teh national GP either need a thurough purge, or maybe a new party will emerge? And I have contributed equally to McKinney and nader. I would prefer a McKinney/Nader ticket running as independents, or builders of a new progressive populist party. But, there you have it.
Re: “Nader is not seeking the Green Party”
The Green Party has announced that Nader is not seeking the Green Party nomination. Nader and Gonzalez have called themselves Independents. These are two different things.
As Richard will remind us, each state has its own ballot access mechanisms, so there is no single, national Green Party nomination. Instead, what you can look for is Nader/Gonzalez as the Green Party candidates in some states, as Independent candidates in others, as BOTH Green AND Independent candidates in still others, and not on the ballot at all in others yet—-I think.
There’s no single Green Party nomination because there’s no national Green Party. The GPUS is a confederation of state Green parties. This is because of the Green Party’s emphasis on decentralization and grassroots organization. There is a Green National Committee but this is purely to satisfy Federal Election Commission requirements.
Having said that, (a) I believe each state Green Party that is affiliated with GPUS is bound by the terms of that affiliation to support the candidates nominated by the party’s convention in July, and (b) I don’t think any individual state Green Party had Nader/Camejo as its ballot-qualified candidates in 2004 (Richard, correct me if I’m wrong). I well remember the nightmarish arguing in California between the Nader camp and the Cobb camp. I really hope that doesn’t happen again this year.
Yes, California was “nightmarish” in 2004. All of these Parties refused to put the Nader/Camejo ticket on the ballot in the Golden State: Green Party; Natural Law Party; and Peace and Freedom Party. What an abdigation of responsibility to the voters of California! My vote went to the Kerry/Edwards ticket. If not for being able to vote for Senator Kerry, I most likely would have voted for Michael Peroutka, the nominee of the American Independent Party (Constitution Party).
Ralph Nader was not on the ballot in any state in 2004 as the Green Party nominee. There were 2 state Green Parties in 2004 (who were ballot-quaalified) that didn’t run anyone for president (Utah and Vermont).
All national parties are confederations of state parties. The GPUS is no different in this respect.
I believe Nader said that he is not seeking the nomination of any existing parties. That would seem to include state Green parties.
Nader and Gonzalez appear to be acting in good faith to avoid a repeat of 2004. I can only hope the party will follow in their footsteps.
Eric: The GPUS is VERY different in that respect. Before the name change a few years ago, it wasn’t even called the Green Party; it was the Association of State Green Parties. No national office, no power residing in a centralized headquarters, no central committee filed with the FEC. Aside from the now-virtually defunct Green Party USA, there literally was no national Green Party.
Green decisionmaking is done via consensus, not majority vote, wherever possible. This can be a very laborious and frustrating process for those not experienced with it, and it makes it hard to organize a party at the national level when most of the power is supposed to reside with the local chapters. If it were not required to have one in order to function within FEC guidelines, the Green Party wouldn’t have a national committee.
I’m aware of no other American political party organized this way.
The differences between the Green Party and other national parties (today, not in 2000) are not at the structural level. Yes, there is a certain tendency among state and local parties to use some (often poorly patched together) variant of consensus process, but that does not change the relationship between the state and national parties.
In 1948, four state Democratic parties nominated a different presidential ticket than the national party. From 1975 to 1995, the Minnesota affiliate of the Republican Party declared itself to be the “Independent-Republican Party” and distanced itself from the positions of the national party. In 2000, the Arizona Libertarian Party nominated a different presidential ticket than the national party. In 2004, the national Natural Law Party disbanded, but several state parties nominated the Socialist Party presidential ticket, and two later merged with other parties. Currently, there are several state Constitution parties that have disaffiliated from the national party while retaining the use of the party name. And I won’t even go into the convoluted history of the Reform Party.
Point being, all U.S. national parties have a complex distribution of control over party resources, but in all cases, it is the state parties that control the ballot lines.
ERIC: Your example of the 2000 Arizona LP is a good one, and a bizarre one. In any event, a state Green Party, to my knowledge, would have to withdraw from the Green Party confederation, as it were, and disaffiliate with GPUS in order to nominate a different candidate than the one nominated at the July convention (as was the case with the CP as you point out). I don’t doubt the possibility of this happening if there is a state whose Green locals are overwhelmingly pro-Nader to the point where they’re willing to go out on their own in order to put him on their ballot instead of Cynthia McKinney.
Eric Prindle Says:
March 7th, 2008 at 5:51 am
[…] From 1975 to 1995, the Minnesota affiliate of the Republican Party declared itself to be the “Independent-Republican Party†and distanced itself from the positions of the national party. […]
Phil Sawyer adds:
It is very unfortunate that the “Independent-Republican Party” of Minnesota (1975 – 1995) did not prove itself to be independent in reality and make the following presidential nominations:
1976: Eugene J. McCarthy (independent candidate for president); 1980: John B. Anderson (independent candidate for president); and 1992: Eugene J. McCarthy (Consumers Party candidate for president).