American Solidarity Party nominee Peter Sonski qualified for the New York ballot as an official write-in option last week, according to the party. Sonski is also listed as a write-in option for voters in Indiana as of this week.
News of the Sonski campaign qualifying for the New York state ballot as a write-in candidate was announced by the American Solidarity Party over social media last Thursday. The party added that it confirmed the ticket would have write-in status. According to records maintained by the New York Board of Elections in the days leading up to the qualifying deadline, the Sonski campaign did not initially file to appear on the ballot, which would have required 45,000 signatures by the May 28 deadline.
“We have confirmed official write-in status for Peter Sonski in the State of New York!” the American Solidarity Party announced. “We are working to make the ballot everywhere we can, but since some states try very hard to make that difficult, we are making sure our supporters have every chance to have their votes count.”
The Sonski campaign has also qualified as a write-in option in Indiana, although information initially produced by the Indiana Secretary of State’s office implied that he qualified for the ballot outright. A document listing candidates for the general election, initially dated June 20, 2024, shows Sonski with no running mate as having filed that same afternoon. A more recent document, dated June 24, 2024, and accessed earlier today, reflects that Sonski has since been classified as a write-in option.
While the total number of states where Sonski has qualified as a write-in candidate is not yet known, the most recent formal announcement from the Sonski campaign in April indicates that the party is officially on the ballot in two states, Hawaii and Arkansas.
But they should have been and clearly would have meant to 🙂
You are free to leave, Reality/Actually/Curious/… Just like IRL, nobody here will miss you.
I don’t read the trolls longer blurtings, but that was short enough to read accidentally. No one was thanking you, troll. You’d only be thanked for going and staying away, if you ever did.
You’re most welcome
Thanks, Jordan.
It’s not specifically a pro-life symbol, but a more general Christian symbol.
Back in ye olde pagan times there was a legend that if a mother pelican could not find sufficient food for her young, she would peck at her chest and feed her young with her own flesh and blood, even if it killed her.
That legend was picked up by Christian philosophers and theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas and John Bunyan, as an allegory of Christ allowing Himself to be crucified and spending three days in Hell for the forgiveness of humanity’s sins, and of the Holy Eucharist, Christ’s flesh and blood, eaten in remembrance of that sacrifice.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001/acref-9780192802903-e-5250
That having been said, based on its policies I would not consider the ASP to be a Christian party by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of its own claims.
https://www.isidewith.com/parties/american-solidarity/policies
NewFederalist: it’s a pelican. I didn’t realize this until I started researching the American Solidarity Party, but the pelican is a pro-life symbol associated with self-sacrifice.
What is the logo of the party? I really can’t make it out.
Jim posted:
“Where the pre-printed ballots have a write in location they could instead have a numerical bubble grid for voters to fill in.”
There could be two write-in lines per office: one with a bubble grid for candidates with codes, one with a standard blank for a voter to write in a name if the candidate doesn’t have a code, or the voter can’t remember it.
That’s actually a good idea, Walter. Each state SOTS could accept write in candidate status until a few days before the election, with a numerical code assigned to each write in candidate. The list of numbers and corresponding names could be printed off by local elections commissions a few days before the election and a paper list could be taped inside each voting station. Where the pre-printed ballots have a write in location they could instead have a numerical bubble grid for voters to fill in.
That makes for easy machine counting of write-ins without having to deal with spelling errors or illegible writing.
What would be the advantage of such codes over the candidate’s name?
When it comes to casting, surely writing-in a code instead of a name would be more effort for the voter. And as far as counting goes, it is not as simple as it might first appear. Assuming you mean each SoS issues a different code, on first glance you could simply dismiss every write-in vote using a candidate’s code from a state where they don’t have ballot access. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep those codes contained to those states: people will certainly be writing in codes from other states on their ballots. So in practice you would now have to verify the voters’ state with the state where the code was issued, and as a result it is more work than just counting write-in votes with a candidate’s name.
When a candidate requests write in status in a state, those candidates could be given a code number by the Secretary of State in each state, which their voters could use in the write in spaces on the ballot, instead of having to write the candidate’s name. That could facilitate casting and counting of write-in votes.