Wando High School, 1989 College of Charleston, 1995
Articles in Charleston City Paper mentioning or about SC Green Party and candidates.
Some people won't be satisfied until every vote becomes a mental affirmation of the Republican incumbent.
It's not the focus of the article, but when mentioning the ballot qualified candidates near the top, you left out Tom Clements, nominee from the SC Green Party against Jim DeMint. Please see:
That said, Erickson is a complete tool. We're going to have to work hard to build a progressive movement in this state.
Green Party nominee Tom Clements will already appear on ballot in November against Jim DeMint. Clements is the nuclear campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth and has been active in SC progressive circles for more than a dozen years. He's an experienced campaigner who is comfortable with policy discussions and public speaking. He's got a well rounded progressive platform that challenges DeMint's positions on taxation, finance and the role of government. People who are inclined to vote against DeMint should give his campaign websites a look, here:
I'm not angry...a little strident maybe.
I do think the issue of electoral fusion needs more discussion.
The Working Families Party by and large only gives its ballot line to candidates also running on the Democratic line. The New York Working families party has run a few candidates without Democratic cross-nominations, but really only in a handful of cases. So, anyone wanting the WFP ballot line would have to seek the Democratic ballot line as well.
Its also probable that, if Eugene Platt had exclusively sought the Green nomination, his campaign would not have been covered during the primary season.
Anyway, point taken on tone.
The issue here is whether one party will have the ability under state law to negate the nomination of another party.
Contrary to the leading sentence of this article there is no imperative to chose one of two prefabricated sides. The point of elections is to offer voters choices in policies. Eugene Platt's record of service and the policies presented on his website voteplatt.com show a markedly different platform than either of his opponents.
Tactically, Platt made the correct decision to seek the nomination of the Working Families, Democratic, and Green parties. All the parties serve different constituencies, which Platt's would arguably better represent than any other candidate. As for the relative quietness of the Green, and Working Families nominations, both were made in conventions, which are a bit less expensive than primaries, but no less public. It was the South Carolina news media that was silent about the nominations of the smaller parties.
Electoral fusion is not merely a 'pooling of votes', but the opportunity to build coalitions and expand political participation. The different political parties represent more or less different ideologies; but still may have complementary interests. Electoral fusion permits a candidate to build a coalition of shared interest across part of the political spectrum. If the appeal to endorsement of a second party does not succeed, then the candidate still has a platform for political office. Except, apparently, in South Carolina, where the state electoral commission has interpreted section 7-11-10 to permit a party which rejects a coalition to negate the candidacy of another party.
On August 11, 2008 editorial page of the Spartanburg Herald Journal sided with Eugene Platt and supports freer ballot access writing, "The court should strike down the law. It narrows the political process. It is dedicated to the preservation of the current power structure, not the effective expression of the will of the people through elections."
The City Paper ought to reexamine this issue from the position of encouraging political participation, not protecting the exclusionary practices of the two major parties.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper