Reform Party of New York Has Over 2,000 People on Ballot

From the Reform Party website:

The Reform Party wishes to clear up recent errors by media outlets. The ballot qualifying Reform Party of New York is associated with the Reform Party National Committee. This affiliation was due to the merger of the Stop Common Core Party and the Reform Party of New York.

The Reform Party of New York has put over 2,000 people on the ballot, which is a major step towards rebuilding a viable Reform Party.

30 thoughts on “Reform Party of New York Has Over 2,000 People on Ballot

  1. Chuck Moulton

    There is a big difference between:

    1) the Reform Party of NY statement:

    The Reform Party of New York has put over 2,000 people on the ballot

    and

    2) the IPR headline:

    Reform Party of New York Has Over 2,000 People on Ballot

    The term “has put” does not necessarily imply all are on the ballot the same year; it could be an aggregate of all previous years. The term “has” in the headline implies they are all on the ballot this year.

  2. Mark Axinn

    I haven’t ever seen any candidate from Reform Party of New York, which is a brand new party.

    (The National Reform Party in New York became the Independence Party).

    As it is a brand new party, this Election day will be the first time to see its candidates on the ballot. Bet I won’t see 2000 candidates.

  3. paulie

    I think what they are trying to do here is claim all of the Republican candidates from 2014. You know, because the Stop Common Core party cross-endorsed all the Republicans, and then changed its name to the Reform Party.

    While I often use other people’s headlines verbatim, when they state such obviously bizarre claims as facts I prefer we put some distance from what IPR reports and what they claim e.g. “Reform Party of NY Says it Has…” or something like that.

  4. paulie

    The LP doesn’t have 2,000 candidates nationwide. Neither does any other alt party. In this year, or any year in at least the last few decades, if ever. So right away it sets off BS flags. I’d like to see some evidence, starting with how they decide who their candidates are – do the candidates have to ask for or even accept that status, or do they just cross-nominate?

  5. paulie

    Yes, I agree they should. I’m just providing reference points for my skepticism about the claims made by the Reform Party here.

  6. paulie

    Exactly. Most of whom probably don’t even know they were cross-endorsed, much less signed off on it, and even less so asked to be.

  7. paulie

    Don’t know about that part.

    I don’t know for 100% sure, which is why I am asking. I do have a strong suspicion though.

    I just hope that in 2016 they act as their own party and place their own candidates on the ballot.

    That would be nice.

    What they are doing now reminds me of when the Whigs defined as party members anyone whose email address they could get their hands on.

  8. paulie

    Cross-endorsing is one question; cross-endorsing a whole bunch of people who didn’t ask you to, didn’t agree to it, and probably don’t even know it happened and then claiming you have thousands of candidates…well… that’s a different question altogether.

  9. Jed Ziggler Post author

    And again, I don’t see any evidence that that is what happened. 2,000+ candidates seeking and obtaining the endorsement of a ballot-qualified party in a state that allows fusion is in no way bizarre.

  10. paulie

    Are 2,000 candidates seeking the endorsement of the NY Green Party? They’re ballot qualified. Use a little common sense here. Pick any state any alt party is ballot qualified in, do they have a thousand or two thousand candidates seeking their nomination? Show me a case anywhere ever of this.

  11. Jed Ziggler Post author

    The Greens don’t cross-endorse.

    “Pick any state any alt party is ballot qualified in, do they have a thousand or two thousand candidates seeking their nomination? ”

    The Conservative Party and Working Families Party probably do.

  12. paulie

    I doubt even that, but even if true, those parties have been around for a while in NY politics and are well-known locally. The average person has no idea the Reform Party still exists and is on the ballot in NY.

    Anyway, I’m just asking question. Instead of me and you guessing why don’t we let someone who actually knows for sure answer?

  13. paulie

    Or let the question hang out there and let people draw their own conclusions. I would prefer a straightforward answer to each of the questions, but we shall see.

  14. Nicholas Hensley

    NY Code – Section 6-146

    “1. A person designated as a candidate for nomination or for party position, or nominated for an office, otherwise than at a primary election, may, in a certificate signed and acknowledged by him, and filed as provided in this article, decline the designation or nomination; provided, however, that, if designated or nominated for a public office other than a judicial office by a party of which he is not a duly enrolled member, or if designated or nominated for a public office other than a judicial office by more than one party or independent body or by an independent body alone, such person shall, in a certificate signed and acknowledged by him, and filed as provided in this article, accept the designation or nomination as a candidate of each such party or independent body other than that of the party of which he is an enrolled member, otherwise such designation or nomination shall be null and void”

  15. paulie

    So did 2,000 candidates sign and return their certificates already? Or are you just assuming they will? Quoting the law does not answer the questions.

  16. Nicholas Hensley

    The candidates requested to use the line. The Reform Party reviewed those requests, and approved or denied those requests. The candidates that were approved then have to accept the Reform Partys approval. That is how it was expained to me.

  17. paulie

    So all 2,000 requested it? Seems a bit hard to believe. I might have to dig a bit deeper. Is there a list of all of them with contact info? It may be in the article or comments above, I’ll look later. If not, please post a link.

  18. paulie

    I’m glad they are on too, especially if they won’t be a rubber stamp for one of the duopoly parties. The 2,000 claim begs to be examined though, and since they are standing by it I’m somewhat curious to get to the bottom of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *