<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wayne Allyn Root on Libertarian Ballot Access</title>
	<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Andy</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609689</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 21:40:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609689</guid>
					<description>&quot;Stefan Says: 

May 17th, 2008 at 6:44 am 
Is there not another party in WV and OK that could provide ballot access for the LP, e.g. have the LP nominee on its list? Do they not allow third parties to be listed?&quot;

The only other party in West Virginia besides Democrats and Republicans that has ballot status is the Mountain Party,  which is the West Virginia affiliate of the Green Party.  I doubt that the Mountain Party would be willing to put the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate on the ballot since they will have their own candidate.  

The Constitution Party has been working on getting enough valid signatures to obtain ballot status in West Virginia but they are having a difficult time there and may not make it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;Stefan Says:</p>
	<p>May 17th, 2008 at 6:44 am<br />
Is there not another party in WV and OK that could provide ballot access for the LP, e.g. have the LP nominee on its list? Do they not allow third parties to be listed?&#8221;</p>
	<p>The only other party in West Virginia besides Democrats and Republicans that has ballot status is the Mountain Party,  which is the West Virginia affiliate of the Green Party.  I doubt that the Mountain Party would be willing to put the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate on the ballot since they will have their own candidate.</p>
	<p>The Constitution Party has been working on getting enough valid signatures to obtain ballot status in West Virginia but they are having a difficult time there and may not make it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Stefan</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609334</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 11:44:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609334</guid>
					<description>Is there not another party in WV and OK that could provide ballot access for the LP, e.g. have the LP nominee on its list? Do they not allow third parties to be listed?

For the ballot access process, one wonders whether the Ron Paul meetup groups, or Libertarians within these groups, could help with the signatures, as they must have a lot of names? It could be that some of them wait to see who is the LP nominee, as they may have some preferences, e.g. candidates that are the closest to Ron Paul and positively supported him. They would include Barr, Ruwart and Smith IMHO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Is there not another party in WV and OK that could provide ballot access for the LP, e.g. have the LP nominee on its list? Do they not allow third parties to be listed?</p>
	<p>For the ballot access process, one wonders whether the Ron Paul meetup groups, or Libertarians within these groups, could help with the signatures, as they must have a lot of names? It could be that some of them wait to see who is the LP nominee, as they may have some preferences, e.g. candidates that are the closest to Ron Paul and positively supported him. They would include Barr, Ruwart and Smith <span class="caps">IMHO</span>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Peter Orvetti</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609226</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 07:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609226</guid>
					<description>What's the deal with Oklahoma?  Are the major parties still smarting over that faithless elector from 1960?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>What&#8217;s the deal with Oklahoma?  Are the major parties still smarting over that faithless elector from 1960?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Andy</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609114</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 04:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609114</guid>
					<description>&quot;Eric Dondero Says: 

May 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm 
Being on in 48, does not preclude the LP from running an official write-in campaign in those two other states – W Va. and OK.&quot;

Oklahoma does not permit write in votes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;Eric Dondero Says:</p>
	<p>May 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm<br />
Being on in 48, does not preclude the LP from running an official write-in campaign in those two other states &#8211; W Va. and OK.&#8221;</p>
	<p>Oklahoma does not permit write in votes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Eric Dondero</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609074</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 03:25:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609074</guid>
					<description>Being on in 48, does not preclude the LP from running an official write-in campaign in those two other states - W Va. and OK.  

Not nearly as good, but at least it's something.  

And the LP needs to get on in Guam too, and I believe Puerto Rico has a non-binded referendum for Pres.  Scott Kohlhaas is always talking about this.  All it would take, is a couple Pro Petitioners to go down to PR to gather the required signatures.  The LP has never been on in PR for that non-binding Prez referendum.  It would be a first for the Party, and something to brag about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Being on in 48, does not preclude the LP from running an official write-in campaign in those two other states &#8211; W Va. and OK.</p>
	<p>Not nearly as good, but at least it&#8217;s something.</p>
	<p>And the LP needs to get on in Guam too, and I believe Puerto Rico has a non-binded referendum for Pres.  Scott Kohlhaas is always talking about this.  All it would take, is a couple Pro Petitioners to go down to PR to gather the required signatures.  The LP has never been on in PR for that non-binding Prez referendum.  It would be a first for the Party, and something to brag about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Steve LaBianca</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609062</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 03:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609062</guid>
					<description>Mr. Wood, I am happy to put your anxiety at ease!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Mr. Wood, I am happy to put your anxiety at ease!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Andy</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609054</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 02:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609054</guid>
					<description>&quot;I guess the CP will really gain big time on the LP this year in terms of ballot access and perhaps even votes depending on who the LP finally decides upon.&quot;

I doubt that the Constitution Party will catch up with the Libertarian Party this year in ballot access.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;I guess the CP will really gain big time on the LP this year in terms of ballot access and perhaps even votes depending on who the LP finally decides upon.&#8221;</p>
	<p>I doubt that the Constitution Party will catch up with the Libertarian Party this year in ballot access.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Peter Orvetti</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609051</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 02:29:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609051</guid>
					<description>No ballot access in D.C.?  That's a shame.  I'm pretty sure D.C. does not actually tabulate write-in votes unless they could conceivably alter the outcome, so writing in the LP ticket might be fruitless in terms of national vote total.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>No ballot access in D.C.?  That&#8217;s a shame.  I&#8217;m pretty sure D.C. does not actually tabulate write-in votes unless they could conceivably alter the outcome, so writing in the LP ticket might be fruitless in terms of national vote total.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bill Wood</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609019</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 01:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-609019</guid>
					<description>Steve, I'm glad you are still there. I was worried about you. ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Steve, I&#8217;m glad you are still there. I was worried about you. <img src='http://thirdpartywatch.com/wp-images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Michael Seebeck</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608813</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 22:26:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608813</guid>
					<description>andy, great explanation on the NC issue.

Richard Winger, if you're lurking, do you have any info on the other states?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>andy, great explanation on the NC issue.</p>
	<p>Richard Winger, if you&#8217;re lurking, do you have any info on the other states?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Kenny</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608786</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 21:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608786</guid>
					<description>More shit from Root supporters!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>More shit from Root supporters!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: NAMBLA FOR MARY '08</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608784</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 21:48:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608784</guid>
					<description>WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><span class="caps">WE WANT MARY</span>! WE <span class="caps">WANT MARY</span>! WE <span class="caps">WANT MARY</span>! WE <span class="caps">WANT MARY</span>! WE <span class="caps">WANT MARY</span>! WE <span class="caps">WANT MARY</span>!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mike Theodore</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608760</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 21:30:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608760</guid>
					<description>Is it just me, or is he acting like he's the nominee already?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Is it just me, or is he acting like he&#8217;s the nominee already?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Andy</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608749</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 21:22:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608749</guid>
					<description>&quot;NewFederalist Says: 

May 16th, 2008 at 3:06 pm 
If the LP is really in such bad shape why was the ballot drive undertaken in NC? Even though it appears it was successful it must have taken a load of cash to complete. And according to BAN the CP is making good progress in WV. I guess things are worse than most outsiders (like me) know.&quot;

It took the LP of NC over 3 1/2 years to complete the NC petition drive.  The drive started on election day in November of 2004.  They had until sometime in the summer of 2005 (June 12th I believe) to finish the drive without losing party status,  however,  they failed to get enough signatures during that time period and lost party status which means they lost all of their registered voters (in other words,  everyone in NC who was registered to vote as a Libertarian was converted to being Decline To State A Political Party).  

Fortunately - in spite of the higher than average percentage of signatures needed as compared to most states - in NC the state gives a party a long time period to get on the ballot and the signatures do not &quot;expire&quot; if you miss the first deadline (this would disqualify all of the signatures in most states and you'd have to start over again from zero).  

Now contrast this with past election cycles where ballot status was regained in NC BEFORE the state decertified the party (as in regaining ballot status between November of 2000-June of 2001).  

Another good thing about North Carolina is that once the petition drive is completed it is good for 4 years of ballot access.  Since the LP of NC failed to requalify for the ballot by June of 2005 they lost all of their voter registrations,  and since they failed to qualify for the ballot by June of 2006 they were not able to run any LP candidates in the November 2006 election.  

The most onerous aspect of North Carolina is that the number of signatures required (69,000 and something valid) is higher than what it is in most states (I think that only California is higher in raw numbers),  although there are some states that are worse on a ratio scale when you compare the number of signatures needed to the population of the state.  However,  this is offset by the fact that the state gives you a long time to gather the signatures and they don't have as many screwy rules as some states have.  

For instance,  Texas requires around 44,000 valid signatures to make it on the ballot as a political party (and 74,000 and something valid signatures to make it on the ballot as a statewide independent candidate),  however,  they only give you like 70 days to collect the signatures,  there is a primary screen out whereas people who voted in the primaries can't sign the petition (and the primaries are held before the petition comes out),  and a registered voter may only sign to put one party and one independent (as in a person without a political party) on the ballot (as in if the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party happened to be doing a petition drive in Texas during the same election cycle,  a person could only sign to put one of them on the ballot).  

North Carolina is one of the more difficult states for ballot access,  but if I were running ballot access and had to skip a few states I'd try to not skip North Carolina.  Why?  Because,  North Carolina is the 11th most populated state and is therefore worth a lot of potential votes,  the state gives a long time period for petition circulation,  and once the drive is successful it is good for 4 years of ballot status.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;NewFederalist Says:</p>
	<p>May 16th, 2008 at 3:06 pm<br />
If the LP is really in such bad shape why was the ballot drive undertaken in NC? Even though it appears it was successful it must have taken a load of cash to complete. And according to <span class="caps">BAN</span> the CP is making good progress in WV. I guess things are worse than most outsiders (like me) know.&#8221;</p>
	<p>It took the LP of NC over 3 1/2 years to complete the NC petition drive.  The drive started on election day in November of 2004.  They had until sometime in the summer of 2005 (June 12th I believe) to finish the drive without losing party status,  however,  they failed to get enough signatures during that time period and lost party status which means they lost all of their registered voters (in other words,  everyone in NC who was registered to vote as a Libertarian was converted to being Decline To State A Political Party).</p>
	<p>Fortunately &#8211; in spite of the higher than average percentage of signatures needed as compared to most states &#8211; in NC the state gives a party a long time period to get on the ballot and the signatures do not &#8220;expire&#8221; if you miss the first deadline (this would disqualify all of the signatures in most states and you&#8217;d have to start over again from zero).</p>
	<p>Now contrast this with past election cycles where ballot status was regained in <span class="caps">NC BEFORE</span> the state decertified the party (as in regaining ballot status between November of 2000-June of 2001).</p>
	<p>Another good thing about North Carolina is that once the petition drive is completed it is good for 4 years of ballot access.  Since the LP of NC failed to requalify for the ballot by June of 2005 they lost all of their voter registrations,  and since they failed to qualify for the ballot by June of 2006 they were not able to run any LP candidates in the November 2006 election.</p>
	<p>The most onerous aspect of North Carolina is that the number of signatures required (69,000 and something valid) is higher than what it is in most states (I think that only California is higher in raw numbers),  although there are some states that are worse on a ratio scale when you compare the number of signatures needed to the population of the state.  However,  this is offset by the fact that the state gives you a long time to gather the signatures and they don&#8217;t have as many screwy rules as some states have.</p>
	<p>For instance,  Texas requires around 44,000 valid signatures to make it on the ballot as a political party (and 74,000 and something valid signatures to make it on the ballot as a statewide independent candidate),  however,  they only give you like 70 days to collect the signatures,  there is a primary screen out whereas people who voted in the primaries can&#8217;t sign the petition (and the primaries are held before the petition comes out),  and a registered voter may only sign to put one party and one independent (as in a person without a political party) on the ballot (as in if the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party happened to be doing a petition drive in Texas during the same election cycle,  a person could only sign to put one of them on the ballot).</p>
	<p>North Carolina is one of the more difficult states for ballot access,  but if I were running ballot access and had to skip a few states I&#8217;d try to not skip North Carolina.  Why?  Because,  North Carolina is the 11th most populated state and is therefore worth a lot of potential votes,  the state gives a long time period for petition circulation,  and once the drive is successful it is good for 4 years of ballot status.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Steve LaBianca</title>
		<link>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608715</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 20:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/16/wayne-allyn-root-on-libertarian-ballot-access/#comment-608715</guid>
					<description>Andy, from what I've heard, the 48 states in 2004 was caused by 1-the LP of NH screwed up.  They didn't turn in the required # of valid signatures. Plus Oklahoma . . . well that is a clusterf**k all its own.

It isn't since 1988 when Ron Paul was our candidate did we not get on in WV.  If my memory serves me correctly we had 46 states plus D.C. in '88.  I believe that we missed in Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, and North Carolina.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Andy, from what I&#8217;ve heard, the 48 states in 2004 was caused by 1-the LP of NH screwed up.  They didn&#8217;t turn in the required # of valid signatures. Plus Oklahoma . . . well that is a clusterf**k all its own.</p>
	<p>It isn&#8217;t since 1988 when Ron Paul was our candidate did we not get on in WV.  If my memory serves me correctly we had 46 states plus D.C. in &#8216;88.  I believe that we missed in Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, and North Carolina.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
