Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
After the Peace and Freedom Party Primary
In a confusing situation in which two candidates appeared in both the Green and Peace and Freedom Party non-binding presidential primaries, along with five others in each party, the campaigns look toward the Peace and Freedom Party state convention in August where the nomination will be decided.
Preliminary results from the non-binding California Peace and Freedom Party presidential preference primary are in, though hundreds of additional votes will continue to be added over the next two weeks as absentee, provisional and challenged ballots are counted.
24 hours after the polls closed, the percentage results are:
Ralph Nader 40.4%.
Cynthia McKinney 21.3%.
Gloria La Riva 20.5%
Brian Moore 5.3% and Stewart Alexander 5.4%, with total support for the ticket at 10.7%.
John Crockford 5.5%.
Stanley Hetz 1.6%.
A study of the county-by-county results is instructive, with the highest percentage of votes for Nader from the most isolated counties with no party organization. Nader's name is familiar to everyone, of course, but he ran no active campaign, and refused even to announce his candidacy. Advocates for his candidacy campaigned in several areas, including Sacramento and Alameda Counties, but (as with most of the candidates) reached relatively few of the Peace and Freedom Party voters.
Both Nader's advocates and the Cynthia McKinney campaign focused on the primary campaign in the Green Party, in which both their names appeared with five other candidates, two of whom (Ball and Brown) announced their withdrawal well before election day. In the Green primary, according to current results, Nader received 61.2% of the vote and McKinney 25.8%. The other 13% was split among the other five candidates, the leader among them at 4.6% being Elaine Brown, who withdrew from the race weeks ago.
The refusal of both Nader and McKinney to campaign actively in the Peace and Freedom Party primary has caused misgivings among many Peace and Freedom Party activists, who fear that nominating either of them could give the party a presidential nominee who would not mention the party's name during the campaign. Several members of the Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee advocated voting for McKinney nevertheless, but Nader appears to lack any organized support among party activists.
It remains to be seen how the nomination prospects in the Green Party will be affected by the votes in their primary. McKinney had a much more active campaign, but Nader received about 2-1/2 times as many votes. Results from the Illinois Green primary the same day are not yet available in California. In Illinois, four candidates were on the ballot, including McKinney and Howie Hawkins, a stand-in for Nader.
The possibilities for the Green nomination nationally include Nader, in which case it is not clear whether McKinney would attempt to gain ballot status in some states independently or using the ballot line of state Green organizations that defy the national choice; McKinney, in which case it is again not clear whether Nader will run, though if he does he already has shown in 2004 that he is willing to gain ballot access through other parties and through independent lines and split-away Greens; and some other candidate, not necessarily one who has yet announced.
The actual choice of the Peace and Freedom Party nominees to go on the ballot in California in November is made by the State Convention, to be held this year in Sacramento on the first weekend in August. The voting delegates will be those elected to the Central Committee in the June election, and the filing period for those positions is just now about to begin.
Both because Nader does not have an active campaign among Peace and Freedom Party activists, and because his lead in the non-binding primary fell well short of a majority, his nomination does not appear likely.
In the case of McKinney, it is not clear whether her campaign will be able to overcome her lower-than-expected vote in the primary and her decisive defeat in the Green primary, in which she did campaign actively. If she pushes ahead with an attempt to gain the Peace and Freedom nomination, that will certainly signal an intention of disregarding the primary vote, which will clear away any obstacle to the two other serious prospects for the nomination, the national tickets of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Socialist Party USA.
Gloria La Riva, the PSL nominee (and former P&F candidate for governor), received the third-highest vote at 20.5%. The Socialist Party ticket of Brian Moore for President and Stewart Alexander (a former P&F candidate for lieutenant governor) for Vice President had both its candidates on the ballot, and their California supporters urged voters to select either one to show support for the ticket. At 10.7% of the vote together, they are in the race for the nomination at the convention. Right now, the choice may come down to organization. Supporters of each ticket will be qualifying Peace and Freedom Party members as candidates for State Central Committee (with simultaneous election to their County Central Committee). This process will last until early March, with write-ins possible in some districts as well during April, if a required petition is first circulated during March. While members may be added to the State Central Committee during other meetings by appointment, no appointments may be made at the Convention meeting, so the convention voters will be limited to those elected in June.
Peace and Freedom Party activists await post-primary statements from the candidates, and it will be interesting to see how effectively the various camps can muster candidates for Central Committee.
(Kevin Akin is South State Chair of the Peace and Freedom Party. This piece represents only his own opinion, and is not an official party statement.)
24 hours after the polls closed, the percentage results are:
Ralph Nader 40.4%.
Cynthia McKinney 21.3%.
Gloria La Riva 20.5%
Brian Moore 5.3% and Stewart Alexander 5.4%, with total support for the ticket at 10.7%.
John Crockford 5.5%.
Stanley Hetz 1.6%.
A study of the county-by-county results is instructive, with the highest percentage of votes for Nader from the most isolated counties with no party organization. Nader's name is familiar to everyone, of course, but he ran no active campaign, and refused even to announce his candidacy. Advocates for his candidacy campaigned in several areas, including Sacramento and Alameda Counties, but (as with most of the candidates) reached relatively few of the Peace and Freedom Party voters.
Both Nader's advocates and the Cynthia McKinney campaign focused on the primary campaign in the Green Party, in which both their names appeared with five other candidates, two of whom (Ball and Brown) announced their withdrawal well before election day. In the Green primary, according to current results, Nader received 61.2% of the vote and McKinney 25.8%. The other 13% was split among the other five candidates, the leader among them at 4.6% being Elaine Brown, who withdrew from the race weeks ago.
The refusal of both Nader and McKinney to campaign actively in the Peace and Freedom Party primary has caused misgivings among many Peace and Freedom Party activists, who fear that nominating either of them could give the party a presidential nominee who would not mention the party's name during the campaign. Several members of the Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee advocated voting for McKinney nevertheless, but Nader appears to lack any organized support among party activists.
It remains to be seen how the nomination prospects in the Green Party will be affected by the votes in their primary. McKinney had a much more active campaign, but Nader received about 2-1/2 times as many votes. Results from the Illinois Green primary the same day are not yet available in California. In Illinois, four candidates were on the ballot, including McKinney and Howie Hawkins, a stand-in for Nader.
The possibilities for the Green nomination nationally include Nader, in which case it is not clear whether McKinney would attempt to gain ballot status in some states independently or using the ballot line of state Green organizations that defy the national choice; McKinney, in which case it is again not clear whether Nader will run, though if he does he already has shown in 2004 that he is willing to gain ballot access through other parties and through independent lines and split-away Greens; and some other candidate, not necessarily one who has yet announced.
The actual choice of the Peace and Freedom Party nominees to go on the ballot in California in November is made by the State Convention, to be held this year in Sacramento on the first weekend in August. The voting delegates will be those elected to the Central Committee in the June election, and the filing period for those positions is just now about to begin.
Both because Nader does not have an active campaign among Peace and Freedom Party activists, and because his lead in the non-binding primary fell well short of a majority, his nomination does not appear likely.
In the case of McKinney, it is not clear whether her campaign will be able to overcome her lower-than-expected vote in the primary and her decisive defeat in the Green primary, in which she did campaign actively. If she pushes ahead with an attempt to gain the Peace and Freedom nomination, that will certainly signal an intention of disregarding the primary vote, which will clear away any obstacle to the two other serious prospects for the nomination, the national tickets of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Socialist Party USA.
Gloria La Riva, the PSL nominee (and former P&F candidate for governor), received the third-highest vote at 20.5%. The Socialist Party ticket of Brian Moore for President and Stewart Alexander (a former P&F candidate for lieutenant governor) for Vice President had both its candidates on the ballot, and their California supporters urged voters to select either one to show support for the ticket. At 10.7% of the vote together, they are in the race for the nomination at the convention. Right now, the choice may come down to organization. Supporters of each ticket will be qualifying Peace and Freedom Party members as candidates for State Central Committee (with simultaneous election to their County Central Committee). This process will last until early March, with write-ins possible in some districts as well during April, if a required petition is first circulated during March. While members may be added to the State Central Committee during other meetings by appointment, no appointments may be made at the Convention meeting, so the convention voters will be limited to those elected in June.
Peace and Freedom Party activists await post-primary statements from the candidates, and it will be interesting to see how effectively the various camps can muster candidates for Central Committee.
(Kevin Akin is South State Chair of the Peace and Freedom Party. This piece represents only his own opinion, and is not an official party statement.)
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
How many folks registered PFP voted ? I heard it was less than 10%. Is that true ? If so how do you explain such a small turnout ? I think over 75% of registered Democrats voted . Shouldn't PFP people be as least committed as those that still go for the '' Lesser evil '' ?
What are the demographics of the party ? Racially, Nationality, Gender. One of the possible reasons that there is apparently so little party loyality is lack of communication . I have rarely received any letters from your State office .
One last question . If McKinney or Nader gets the nomination of both the Green party and PF . will you cooperate with the Greens ? (I will ask the same question of the Green leaders )
What are the demographics of the party ? Racially, Nationality, Gender. One of the possible reasons that there is apparently so little party loyality is lack of communication . I have rarely received any letters from your State office .
One last question . If McKinney or Nader gets the nomination of both the Green party and PF . will you cooperate with the Greens ? (I will ask the same question of the Green leaders )
As a long time P&F registrant & voter and sometime activist, I'd urge the P&F central committee and voters to reject any candidate - Nader, McKinney, LaRiva - who doesn't strongly advocate for building the party in California. That none of these three promote P&F in their campaigns and two also seek the Green nomination shows they are just using the P&F ballot line to build their own faction, party (PSL, GP) or campaign. If McKinney is the nominee and P&F aligns with the movement for a Reconstruction Party, support for her candidacy should be based on efforts to register more P&F voters and actively campaign for P&F candidates in all other races down the line.
P&F was undermined and almost destroyed by factions like Lenora Fulani's New Alliance Party and the quasi-socialist International Workers Party (whatever happened to them?) in the 1980s and was held together mostly by a group of committed activists who were/are either independent of any outside party or members of the Socialist Party. We need new active members to keep from losing ballot status again; our ballot status shouldn't be a vehicle for candidates who don't actively support building a socialist alternative to the incumbent duopoly and capitalist Greens.
P&F and the GP have worked together in the past and in 1992 almost had the same nominee for president, Ron Daniels, who thankfully prevailed over Fulani at the P&F convention; the Greens decided not to run a presidential campaign in CA as they had only recently gained ballot status and apparently thought it more important to elect Anybody But Bush.
P&F was undermined and almost destroyed by factions like Lenora Fulani's New Alliance Party and the quasi-socialist International Workers Party (whatever happened to them?) in the 1980s and was held together mostly by a group of committed activists who were/are either independent of any outside party or members of the Socialist Party. We need new active members to keep from losing ballot status again; our ballot status shouldn't be a vehicle for candidates who don't actively support building a socialist alternative to the incumbent duopoly and capitalist Greens.
P&F and the GP have worked together in the past and in 1992 almost had the same nominee for president, Ron Daniels, who thankfully prevailed over Fulani at the P&F convention; the Greens decided not to run a presidential campaign in CA as they had only recently gained ballot status and apparently thought it more important to elect Anybody But Bush.
Good questions, here are some answers.
We have about 57,000 registrants right now (though thousands of others are listed as inactive voters, but may vote if they show up at the polls, as with the other parties). The current totals shown on the Secretary of State's website for the vote on Tuesday show about 9% voting, but this will probably climb to 10% or 11% when all the ballots have been counted. Peace and Freedom voters are likelier than others to be last-minute absentee voters, provisional voters, or challenged voters. This turnout is not unusual. Unfortunately, our party historically has one of the lowest primary turnouts of any party, something we can describe better than we can explain. One reason, no doubt, is that there is no media buzz about our candidates, as the billionnaire-owned media tries to pretend that this socialist-inclined party doesn't exist. Our candidates typically have little money for voter turnout or mass mailings. In order to get information about our party and its candidates, the best way is to go to our website at http://www.peaceandfreedom.org and check out the connections.
Our candidates normally get many times as many votes (often 100 times as many) in the November general election as they get in the primary election, a much higher multiple than for any other party.
The prospect of nominating the same presidential candidate as the Greens is not something we have had to plan for before, but the candidate would probably largely determine the extent of cooperation if that were to happen. (There was a serious attempt to nominate Ralph Nader in 1996, which Nader refused for his own reasons, at least in part because of knowingly false advice about the law from a certain advisor.) In fact, it is legal for two or more parties to nominate the same candidate. In a presidential race, it is necessary for both parties (and the candidate) to agree on a joint slate of elector candidates if the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees are to appear on one line with both party names. While it hasn't happened in California recently, in New York it is not unknown for candidates to appear on more than one ballot line, with a different slate of electors from each party. This could be fatal for someone with a clear prospect of victory, but would be an oddity rather than a flaw when the nominees are running in order to push issues rather than in a serious effort to move into the White House.
I believe I do speak for the Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee in saying, as we have said before in similar circumstances, that we would cooperate with other parties nominating the same candidates. This applies to either Nader or McKinney if one gains the Green nomination, or to Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, or to Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander of the Socialist Party USA. The La Riva-Puryear ticket and the Moore-Alexander ticket are each expected to appear on more than a dozen state ballots in November, with prospects of 20 or more if all efforts are successful.
Actually working on this cooperation in the case of the Green Party probably requires getting a better idea of the prospects for the Nader and the McKinney campaigns within the Green Party, and learning whether there will be a split, as has been predicted by some, between Green groups in various states over the nomination. We also will have little idea for the next few weeks of how many candidates for Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee will be filing, or of whom they will be inclined to support at our state convention.
I understand that both the supporters of La Riva-Puryear and of Moore-Alexander are asking their supporters to run for Central Committee, in part in order to gain votes at the convention (and in part simply to strengthen the Peace and Freedom Party). If either Nader or McKinney wishes to get the nomination, it would behoove them to do the same. It may be a weakness for their campaigns within P&F that their core supporters are committed to the Green Party, and may be unwilling to urge people to register in or be active in the Peace and Freedom Party. But it is up to them.
We do have some information about the ethnic, racial, economic and other backgrounds of many of our registrants, though to my knowledge no one has done a comprehensive survey. Our highest registrations are in the least prosperous areas, and among racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African-Americans and Mexican-Americans and Central Americans. We put out printed material and have web pages in Spanish as well as English, not out of idealism but simply because this is necessary in California for a working-class party. (We do favor restoration of Spanish as a co-equal official language of California, as it was until 1870,.) It is no accident that among our candidates for statewide office in 2006 were two African-Americans and a Chicana (who received the highest vote total of any of our candidates).
There are serious problems with communication between our Central Committee and candidates and our membership of registered voters, mainly because we simply do not have the money to maintain such communication by mail. (A mailing to every registrant, counting printing and postage, would cost some $30,000, more than our entire budget for the year.) This situation has been slowly improving as more people get hooked into the internet, and we are working on improving it much more quickly.
We have about 57,000 registrants right now (though thousands of others are listed as inactive voters, but may vote if they show up at the polls, as with the other parties). The current totals shown on the Secretary of State's website for the vote on Tuesday show about 9% voting, but this will probably climb to 10% or 11% when all the ballots have been counted. Peace and Freedom voters are likelier than others to be last-minute absentee voters, provisional voters, or challenged voters. This turnout is not unusual. Unfortunately, our party historically has one of the lowest primary turnouts of any party, something we can describe better than we can explain. One reason, no doubt, is that there is no media buzz about our candidates, as the billionnaire-owned media tries to pretend that this socialist-inclined party doesn't exist. Our candidates typically have little money for voter turnout or mass mailings. In order to get information about our party and its candidates, the best way is to go to our website at http://www.peaceandfreedom.org and check out the connections.
Our candidates normally get many times as many votes (often 100 times as many) in the November general election as they get in the primary election, a much higher multiple than for any other party.
The prospect of nominating the same presidential candidate as the Greens is not something we have had to plan for before, but the candidate would probably largely determine the extent of cooperation if that were to happen. (There was a serious attempt to nominate Ralph Nader in 1996, which Nader refused for his own reasons, at least in part because of knowingly false advice about the law from a certain advisor.) In fact, it is legal for two or more parties to nominate the same candidate. In a presidential race, it is necessary for both parties (and the candidate) to agree on a joint slate of elector candidates if the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees are to appear on one line with both party names. While it hasn't happened in California recently, in New York it is not unknown for candidates to appear on more than one ballot line, with a different slate of electors from each party. This could be fatal for someone with a clear prospect of victory, but would be an oddity rather than a flaw when the nominees are running in order to push issues rather than in a serious effort to move into the White House.
I believe I do speak for the Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee in saying, as we have said before in similar circumstances, that we would cooperate with other parties nominating the same candidates. This applies to either Nader or McKinney if one gains the Green nomination, or to Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, or to Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander of the Socialist Party USA. The La Riva-Puryear ticket and the Moore-Alexander ticket are each expected to appear on more than a dozen state ballots in November, with prospects of 20 or more if all efforts are successful.
Actually working on this cooperation in the case of the Green Party probably requires getting a better idea of the prospects for the Nader and the McKinney campaigns within the Green Party, and learning whether there will be a split, as has been predicted by some, between Green groups in various states over the nomination. We also will have little idea for the next few weeks of how many candidates for Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee will be filing, or of whom they will be inclined to support at our state convention.
I understand that both the supporters of La Riva-Puryear and of Moore-Alexander are asking their supporters to run for Central Committee, in part in order to gain votes at the convention (and in part simply to strengthen the Peace and Freedom Party). If either Nader or McKinney wishes to get the nomination, it would behoove them to do the same. It may be a weakness for their campaigns within P&F that their core supporters are committed to the Green Party, and may be unwilling to urge people to register in or be active in the Peace and Freedom Party. But it is up to them.
We do have some information about the ethnic, racial, economic and other backgrounds of many of our registrants, though to my knowledge no one has done a comprehensive survey. Our highest registrations are in the least prosperous areas, and among racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African-Americans and Mexican-Americans and Central Americans. We put out printed material and have web pages in Spanish as well as English, not out of idealism but simply because this is necessary in California for a working-class party. (We do favor restoration of Spanish as a co-equal official language of California, as it was until 1870,.) It is no accident that among our candidates for statewide office in 2006 were two African-Americans and a Chicana (who received the highest vote total of any of our candidates).
There are serious problems with communication between our Central Committee and candidates and our membership of registered voters, mainly because we simply do not have the money to maintain such communication by mail. (A mailing to every registrant, counting printing and postage, would cost some $30,000, more than our entire budget for the year.) This situation has been slowly improving as more people get hooked into the internet, and we are working on improving it much more quickly.
That was a good response from Kevin Akin to the ''usual voter''. I'm also a member of the PFP State Central Comm. and i think I can safely say that most (if not all ) members of our S.C.C. are all too aware that PFP has serious problems .
Most of us also welcome thoughtfull comments from the PFP Voter and share those concerns .
There are some bright spots .Contrary to popular myth (like those recycled by Becky O'Malley in the current (2/5 ) issue of the Berkeley Daily Planet ) we aren't a party of ''aging white hippies '' who (as O"Malley muses ''refuse to grow up and vote Democrat '' ! ) but fairly ethnic and racially diverse .
One Example when we regained ballot status in 2004 we noticed that not only were many of new registerants from the Central valley (often times written off by Bay area and LA activists as a hopelessly reactionary region ) but a noticable number were, judging by their names , Vietnamese . Who, due to the very rightwing exiles that still dominate the leadership of their communities, are also often written off en mass by progressives .
More later.
Most of us also welcome thoughtfull comments from the PFP Voter and share those concerns .
There are some bright spots .Contrary to popular myth (like those recycled by Becky O'Malley in the current (2/5 ) issue of the Berkeley Daily Planet ) we aren't a party of ''aging white hippies '' who (as O"Malley muses ''refuse to grow up and vote Democrat '' ! ) but fairly ethnic and racially diverse .
One Example when we regained ballot status in 2004 we noticed that not only were many of new registerants from the Central valley (often times written off by Bay area and LA activists as a hopelessly reactionary region ) but a noticable number were, judging by their names , Vietnamese . Who, due to the very rightwing exiles that still dominate the leadership of their communities, are also often written off en mass by progressives .
More later.
i wrote that PFP regained ballot status in 2004 . Mistake . it was in 2002 .
Peace and Freedom Party regained ballot status in California in February 2003.
CT Weber is right. We did actually regain our ballot status in 2003 . But i did mean to write that we were able to run candidates again in 2004 .
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$220.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network