from STLtoday.com/St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Slay to face challengers in mayoral debate
By Jake Wagman / March 23, 2009
ST. LOUIS — Mayor Francis Slay will face independent candidate Maida Coleman in a debate next week sponsored by the League of Women Voters.
Green Party* nominee Elston McCowan and Libertarian Robb Cunningham have also agreed to participate.
The 7 p.m event will be next Monday, March 30 at the downtown library on Olive.
Earlier, Slay took some criticism for skipping a candidate forum sponsored by the Mound City Bar Association, an organization of African-American lawyers.
*Please note that “The Green Party” in Missouri is separate from the organization, GP-US, which is affiliated with a majority of state Green Parties. In Missouri, the GP-US affiliate is: The Progressive Party of Missouri.
I found the list on DCPoliticalReport
D.C. Statehood Green Party of the District of Columbia
Green Independent Party of Maine
Green-Rainbow Party of Massachusetts,
Mountain Party of West Virginia
Pacific Green Party of Oregon
Progressive Party of Missouri
Desert Greeens of Utah
Exactly. LP probably could not tap any cities that large, but with precinct organization and county commission races plus single issue coalition building could easily become competitive in midsize counties (on the order of 100k ppl) which are lopsided one-party.
New Paltz and San Francisco are also places where Greens/leftists routinely beat the crap out of Republicans.
Albany, NY is another city where the last Green candidate for mayor spanked the Republican candidate. There are lots of cities that are single-party Democratic towns. Good potential for Green growth there, especially considering the stagnation and corruption bred by noncompetitive politics.
I think the Greens are ahead of the Republicans by some measures in cities like DC, St Louis, etc.
The Libertarians should do something similar in mid-size one-party counties all over the country.
“Inconceivable that a party would ignore a whole city.”
Not really. Republicans simply can’t win in the city of St. Louis. I believe their last mayoral candidate got something like 13%, and their other candidates routinely poll in single or low double digits as well. So, the GOP’s organization doesn’t try to recruit candidates there, and doesn’t spend money on those who decide on their own to run. They invest their candidate recruitment and campaign dollars in the suburbs instead.
“I wonder if the Progressive Party is standing aside for the Dems? Standing aside for the other Green Party?”
Probably neither. In Missouri, ballot access is achieved at several levels. Get 2% or more in a statewide race, you get ballot access statewide for four years. Get 2% or more in a lower race, you get ballot access in the district that race covers for four years.
The Green Party in Missouri split into two groups a few years back — the St. Louis area organization in one group, pretty much all the other Missouri Greens in another. Apparently St. Louis city ballot access remained under the control of the St. Louis area organization, which had fielded city candidates who easily broke the 2% barrier.
–All that is needed is party coordination such that ONLY ONE Green OR Libertarian is on EVERY ballot. The best way might be the honor system such that first come (first on the ballot) first served(remains on the ballot). All others discouraged from getting on & if on to get off.–
My response:
While Green/Libertarian coalitions are wonderful, can work, and have been done at times, the kind of scenario listed above is not a good thing.
It would be a top down plan, imposed on local groups. So, it would be a fascism of the leaders of the two parties collaborating.
When I was in the Green Party, I was even resistant when GREENS at a higher level tried to tell GREENS at the lower level to focus or not focus on a local race.
Another reason this would not work logistically: Many times Green ideas and Libertarian ideas intersect. And, many candidates could run a respectable campaign, focusing on issues that both parties would agree on.
But, if a Libertarian came into my local area, and tried to propose legislation I saw as anti-environmental or too lax environmentally, and someone told me no green could run against that candidate – I would run against that candidate. (And, in NY, I could, because the Green Party cannot “block” a candidate from running, their only power is if they run/prefer a candidate, that is the candidate that is picked. So, the parties in NY do not even have the power to do the formula/deal suggested above.)
If someone wants Green/Libertarian coalitions, they should focus on the Presidential, where the national parties and national reps of both parties could possibly work together fairly create a clear deal. Or, with a national focus, someone could just create a Prez/Vice Prez team that wins both conventions.
But, locally the only logical and fair way to do Green/Libertarian coalitions is to focus on voluntary, case-by-case partnerships. And, to get buy in from the local Libertarians and local Green Party members.
Imposed formulas do not make it in a party that cherishes grassroots democracy.
And, imposed formulas do not make it in a party that cherishes freedom, liberty and the right of candidates to run.
So, this “deal/formula for every ballot” idea is not good.
What if noone runs in a district? Governor chooses?
All that is needed is party coordination such that ONLY ONE Green OR Libertarian is on EVERY ballot. The best way might be the honor system such that first come (first on the ballot) first served(remains on the ballot). All others discouraged from getting on & if on to get off.
McKinney was on the ballot in at least 9 forms. The 7 listed above, Green Party, and Independent.
Didn’t Nader win several of the smaller party nominations that McKinney attempted to gain?
Okay, Paulie. How about some teamwork. I used your hints, and collected the names for Trent…
DC Statehood Green Party
Maine Independent Green Party
Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party (different name used because someone built a coalition)
Green Party of Utah – Desert Greens (different name used because of split/dispute)
Pacific Green Party of Oregon
Progressive Party of Missouri
West Virginia Mountain Party
–
Now, for the second part of Trent’s question, I am not clear which states Cynthia McKinney was on the ballot for. That might be a Richard Winger/Ballot Access News question.
Oh, Paulie, sorry to have set you off on that task.
LOL
Now, we should both get some sleep.
(I guess I am worse than you, since it is an hour later here!)
Well, the info junkie got the better of me and I looked through them all.
No others without Green in the name, but Maine, DC, Oregon, Massachusetts and Utah have a second word in the name (different in each one).
Kimberly,
I know most have Green in the name–but im interested in all the various names.
Chuck Baldwin was on the ballot with like 11 seperate party designations in 2008, so Im curious as to how many Cynthia McKinney had.
Oh, yeah. I thought that the entire Mountain Party dilemma was solved and it was named Green Party. But, you are correct. The GP-US affiliate is still called Mountain Party. (What they won was something like the right to put the Presidential candidate under the Green line or something like that…?)
But, I do think that is it for parties affiliated with GP-US that DO NOT HAVE green anywhere in their title. I think it is just The West Virginia Mountain Party and Missouri Progressive Party that have totally different names.
Peace,
Kimberly
Off the top of my head, Mountain Party in WV.
But a lot of states have something + green, ie. Pacific Green, Desert Green, etc.
I did not feel like checking them all.
Paulie,
Are you trying to send poor Trent on a wild goose chase? I am almost sure that Missouri is the only one in the country where “green” is not in the name. I could be wrong, but I clicked on a lot of states to do a quick check.
There is “The Maine Green Independent Party” and other states with extra words. But, I think every other state besides Missouri has green in the title, at least. And, the Missouri name happened because of a split/break off.
Click on each state.
http://www.gp.org/states.shtml
“They have a bunch of different ones.”
What other names do they go by?
Wow. Chuck, interesting info.
And, I do know it is difficult to run third party candidates.
But, it seems odd to me that the “Progressive Party/GP-US affiliate” there does not put up any candidates.
I wonder if the Progressive Party is standing aside for the Dems? Standing aside for the other Green Party? Or, just too small to throw someone up at all those one candidate races…
Wow…as a third party activist, all those one party races look like a field day, where a third party candidate could really take the stage…
reply to morgan
…St. Louis city politics defy explanation. There might be one R on the whole ballot for April 7.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2009/04/07/mo/slc/municipal.html
makes ya wonder what the payoff was for this ‘handshake’ deal. Inconceivable that a party would ignore a whole city.
I had no idea that the Green Party has state affilliates with different names.
They have a bunch of different ones.
Wow…only one major-party candidate?
I had no idea that the Green Party has state affilliates with different names. Although I did know Massachussetts had the Rainbow Green Party.
The League has been very fair to third-party candidates. State/local third parties should make sure to quietly get their people in local LMVs and start setting up real debates.
Great news! I hope the people in St. Louis tune in.
I wonder whether or not the Missouri state patrol will be closely monitoring Robb Cunningham’s terrorist rhetoric . . . perhaps this whole debate is a clever sting operation by the League and state troopers.
Seriously, though, props to the League. I wish they still ran the presidential debates.
o/t: one more post here makes 3,000 stories at IPR (in ten months).