Talk:Peace and Freedom Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would not characterize the defeat of the Workers World Party's Monica Moorehead, in a three-way convention contest with the Socialist Party's candidate (whose name currently escapes me) and Ralph Nader in 1996 as an example of a rebuff to an extremist group's takeover attempt. Their participation in the nomination process was entirely legitimate, and not part of a takeover attempt. It could be argued, in fact, that with Vice Presidential candidate Gloria La Riva, the WWP candidacy was more "indigenous" to P&F than the other two. (I present this view as one who voted against the WWP, as well as the others for different reasons.)

It should be clarified in the article that, while our other statewide candidates are nominated by direct primary, we choose our Presidential candidates at a convention of delegates comprising those elected to each County Central Committee during the primary; the Presidential primary is advisory but not binding, according to our bylaws.

The debate at the 1996 convention was spirited and principled, and the voting difficult as no candidate was able to secure a majority, and we had a hard time trying to determine the "will of the body". We went through several rounds, starting with a straight three-way vote, an up-or-down on each as "acceptable" or "unacceptable", some discussion of an "Instant Runoff" vote (but no means to implement one), and probably more that I've forgotten since then. In the end, we selected Marsha Feinland, our then State Chair, as the candidate, with the stipulation that, should P&F actually obtain the Presidential nomination, we would put forth a slate of Electors to the Electoral College proportionately representative of the votes each of the three (WWP, SP and Nader).

A much better incident to use as an example would be the attempt by the New Alliance Party in the mid-1980s to early-1990s, during which they succeeded in sabotaging our convention in 1988, and were ultimately rebuffed in 1992. Unlike the WWP, they were a classic example of a hostile takeover operation.

--70.132.53.190 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (note, I wrote this before I got my Wikipedia account) --Davecampbell 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Missing Presidential candidates?

Did the party not run candidates in 1976, 1984, and 2000?

http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/ has Margaret Wright (Peoples Party) as their 1976 candidate (on their Third Party Presidential Candidates page), and says P&FP endorsed Sonia Johnson (Citizens Party) in 1984, but had Bill Thorn as the VP candidate instead of Richard Walton (on their Citizens Party page). In 2000 it appears they didn't have ballot access, but perhaps they has a write-in candidate, or endorsed another party's ticket? Schizombie 23:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

P&F was off the ballot in 2000. It recommended a vote for either Ralph Nader or one of the socialist candidates running independently as write-ins. --Davecampbell 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ricardo Romo

Is the Ricardo Romo the party ran for Governor in 1970 the same as the University of Texas President? Esquizombi 13:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eldridge Cleaver's VP running mate?

Wasn't it Douglas Fitzgerald Dowd? Someone added a mention of a Peggy Terry - is that wrong, or was there more than one running mate? Шизомби 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, Steve Argue

Hi, Steve. Your comment about leaving P&F is more appropriate for the discussion page; the main page is not for airing of personal differences. Good to see you here nonetheless. --Davecampbell 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Workers World Party Involvement

According the website Politics1 the Workers Wold Party had a heavy involvement and/or was involved in party in-fighting until 1996 when their "candidate was successfully blocked." I came to Wikipedia to find more info on this and there isn't any here. I was wondering if anyone knew anything and if so would they be willing to add it, as it may be helpful

ChipMD 00:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at that site, and just skimming through several of its entries (including the one for Peace and Freedom Party) I see lots of oversimplification, apparent confusion, and a generally snarky tone, all of which argue against treating that site as an informational source.
At the very top of this Talk page, is an old note written by me in response to a similar characterization, in an earlier version of this article, of the WWP's role in the 1996 State Convention and presidential nomination contest (claiming that WWP had tried to "take over" P&F); my note, which is original research (having been a participant at that convention and chaired one of its sessions), presents what I believe to be a fair recitation of the WWP role there - i.e., completely legitimate, and not any sort of a takeover attempt.
The rest of that site's "information" about P&F is likewise to be, if not completely disregarded, at least taken with a huge grain of salt.

--Davecampbell (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] omissions: 2000; 2002;...

This section of the talk page takes up way too much space, is completely unintelligible, and serves no apparent useful purpose. Therefore, I would like to delete it & clean up this page. However, I understand there are rules against deleting other people's posts on talk pages. Given that the user who posted this mess appears (see user's profile and talk page) to interact in this way with the rest of the world, to the general consternation of many, I wonder if we can make an exception here. I hereby request guidance on this matter. Thanks to you all. --Davecampbell (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)





< http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:2JdBHtDjL7QJ:peaceandfreedom2004.org/leaflets/propositions_v1.pdf+%22759+9737%22+%22%22+%22465+9414%22+%22%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us >:

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 04:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about - if the question is, who were the P&F candidates for 2000 and 2002, the answer is, there weren't any, because we were temporarily off the ballot during that period, as noted in the article. --Davecampbell (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent History

In 1998, the PFP failed to attain more than 2% of the votes cast, causing the party to lose ballot status in the state. Their position on the ballot was restored in 2003 after a voter registration drive.

Okay; but, maybe, in order to simplify reading it [reference list], there could be a notation f/ that era, w/ the reference that you've made. I am not certain how to edit that in, in an appropriate manner.

Further, the actual digital-sequences of those specific years are not displayed @ all, except that I'd put them into the discussion. If the list would state "no candidate,..... please see above note", then those two years would actually appear.

Furthermore, I have some complaints about Riverside County's ballot. Is there a Palm Springs, Coachella Valley, party person? The Oakland telephone does not answer; the South Central number does not answer.

Yet further, it could truly be helpful to have a PeaceFphreeq wiki. { Peacefphreeq pfp }

Any wiki chance?

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 03:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to the unique nature of this party's name, the redirects are especially crucial, as they are regarding any article w/ many various potential permutations.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Peace and Freedom Party.png

Image:Peace and Freedom Party.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this at the last Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee meeting, since that body is the only entity that could be called the logo's "owner", as far as I know. There was a general scratching of heads, wondering what this was all about, and a collective shrug, having more urgent business to attend. Since then, I've poked around here some, checking all the links in the note above to try and find out what the status of this issue is, and how to remedy it. Turns out, the user BetacommandBot has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia on account of incorrectly tagging articles. So as far as I'm aware, this issue is not an issue at all. If a human knows anything different, please advise so we can straighten it out. --Davecampbell (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)