Posted at peaceandfreedom.org:
Every four years, the League of Women Voters and the California Channel on cable TV collaborate on the production of a series of interviews with candidates for statewide office, the Board of Equalization, and the appellate courts. This year’s effort is called Cable’s Free Airtime Project 2010.
These interviews are posted online and will be shown on cable outlets all over California until November 2. For a schedule, click here (unfortunately, this schedule is sometimes out of date).
Here are links to the interviews with Peace and Freedom Party candidates. All interviews were conducted by representatives of the League of Women Voters.
- Carlos Alvarez for Governor
- C. T. Weber for Lieutenant Governor
- Bob Evans for Attorney General
- Debra Reiger for Treasurer
- Dina Padilla for Insurance Commissioner
- Marsha Feinland for U.S. Senate
- Mary Lou Finley for State Board of Equalization, 3rd District
- Sherill Borg for State Board of Equalization, 1st District
Thank you for featuring these videos. We also offer free listings to candidates at http:www.smartvoter.org. The California races are here: http://smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/state/#findcand
Re spam, what’s the policy? Is it some sort of robo-moderator?
Yes. It’s called akismet.
Click below to see the elected California: “Coalition of Seven, Eight With Lightfoot [Libertarian] for US Senate”
http://www.usparliament.org/drafts/electionAD.html
Spam
Re spam, what’s the policy? Is it some sort of robo-moderator?
You’d think that as a political chat room, that political posts wouldn’t be viewed as spam.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with people typing what they wish, but I’m aware there can be advertisers who post thing for sale everywhere.
I mean, are people penalized for posting too much? My reason for posting, is because the Peace and Freedom Party is such a dictatorial group. Their old chair was a total jerk, but their current chair is cool. MSP CT Weber [P&F] is his name.
But I’m for the chair/vice chair system, where the top male and top female (or visa versa) is guaranteed when 2/3rds of the voters vote that way.
I don’t think they use that system. I actually like executives by committee, like a five member executive, so everything doesn’t rest on one person. Two member districts result in ties or inaction.
Unless two-member districts are elected under ranked voting, there’s no guarantee that the results will be the top male and top female (or visa versa) even though 2/3rds of the voters wanted it that way by alternating genders when they vote.
This is my edge that nobody else cares about, because it doesn’t exist anywhere except in parliamentary elections under ranked voting and muti-member districts. Women seem to like it as far as I can tell.
I’ve discovered that men and women vote differently, and that’s another why we never have had a female president or vice president.
In California, we’ve never had a women for Governor or Lt. Governor.
Usually, we get what I call “meanie men”, because most elections in the US are single winner districts, and men are meaner than women. Women don’t make good physical fighters between opposite genders. They are the fairer and more physically beautiful of the genders, but they’re not mean and physical fighters.
California:
http://www.usparliament.org/drafts/electionAD.html
“Yeah Ogle, you’re a borderline spammer.”
Borderline, CT? Surely you jest!
Thanks for the good work and interest, Paulie and Cat. Trot.
In The USA Parliament, Inc., we attract cool people who want to work as a team. But every individual is different. We’re like 100 individuals with a word(s) by their name. Parties don’t actually exist in this system of 100 individuals in my opinion.
It’s kind of hard to explain, but I’ll try. We are based on a stack of ballots cast as proof, where every one’s ballot factors in to the sum, as long as it’s marked with consecutive numbers beginning with the number one.
See our rules (rule #1 in particular);
http://www.usparliament.org/rules.htm
Even our rules are elected in consecutive order and we’re had some fantastic help by those who voted on the rules in the past.
One improvement I’d like to see is to expand past 100 members on the national parliament, and to try to go to 1000 names.
Again, everyone is different, even within each party. So it’s more like 100 individuals.
Mainly our California Parliament has been most active, in almost passing actual decisions by the five executives’ 3/5th vote. But we didn’t pass any decisions as of yet.
Mostly we accomplish voter registration.
If anyone wants to be appointed, you can practice by being on the 6th California Parliament’s Cabinet, next years’ Central California Parliament, or even the national Cabinet.
Thanks for your interest, if you’d like, I can try to vote you into the national Cabinet as I am one of five executives. I can at least get your name nominated, I’m sure. We need to rotate in some better names, like Veteran’s Affairs Minister nominee Don Lake [American Independent].
But I’m not sure, I’ll have to review the rules. I can’t remember exactly how to proceed.
If either of you wish to be in the Cabinet (or anyone else out there) email me privately, or post it here in this group.
I’ll try to pick up the message and make it so. If it doesn’t happen keep trying, but please do act decisively. We have several levels, and twelve different population balanced national regions too.
Right now we’re trying to get our search engine and ad program operational on the California State level (see the Cabinet/Decisions link for all the new cabinet members to be soon elected) and we’ll start beta testing around November 2nd or later once the paypal and Wells Fargo banking system is in place for taking out ads online.
Hope you like it, and thanks for the nterest.
I look forward to hearing from you again.
Best,
–James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
“Make YOUR name #1!”
Yeah Ogle, you’re a borderline spammer. I still may try to join your US Parliament group, though. It sounds interesting.
I’ve never heard any good explanation as to why the Peace and Freedom and Green Parties won’t merge, other than some stupid personality conflicts. They all need to either join the Democrats, or merge and coordinate with the Libertarians and try PLAS. Otherwise they’re just trying to catch the wind.
If by “this group” you mean IPR, it’s actually an automated spam filter, and I rescued two of your comments from it since your comment above alerted me to take a look.
You’re welcome.
The control freak moderators of this group are engaging in some terrible managing and are attempting to promote the anti-democratic dictators by meddling in the free speech process.
http://www.usparliament.org/ss11.htm