H/T to d.eris on this one. The Burlington Free Press reports that there might be yet another progressive third party in Vermont. Read the full story here.
Brush said he didn’t expect the party to run candidates, at least not many in the next election. Rather the party would look over candidates from Vermont’s other parties for those who support positions important to the Working Families Party and offer endorsements and support.
Vermont is one of 10 states that allows candidates to run with more than one party affiliation noted on the ballot and those are the states that the Working Families Party have targeted. The party was founded in New York in 1998 and then spread to Connecticut.
Vermont has three major political parties — Democrats, Republicans and Progressives. A political party is considered “major” in Vermont if one of its statewide candidates received more than 5 percent of the vote in the most recent election. Vermont also has had three minor parties in recent years — Liberty Union, Libertarian and Constitutional.
All political parties must reorganize during the fall of odd-numbered years. Those reorganizational meetings are in process now for at least five of the six parties on record, said David Crossman in the election division at the Office of the Secretary of State. The minimum hurdle for a party to be recognized by the Office of the Secretary of State would be to hold 10 town caucuses with five officers elected for each town committee and a statewide gathering where state officers are elected.
15 responses so far ↓
1 Richard Winger // Nov 17, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I can’t avoid sounding petty, so I’m reconciled to that problem. How come D.Eris gets the hat tip when I reported it at Ballot Access News on November 16?
2 Don Lake, Prove Me Wrong ........... // Nov 17, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Don’t think you are the only one with questions ………
3 Ross Levin // Nov 17, 2009 at 9:45 pm
He emailed it to us and that’s where I saw it first. Sorry Richard.
Here’s the link to Richard’s story on the subject: http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/11/16/working-families-party-qualifying-for-vermont-ballot-gets-publicity/
4 wolfefan // Nov 17, 2009 at 11:09 pm
No need to apologize, Richard, and thanks for pointing it out. BTW, sometimes there is a byline for who posted something and sometimes there isn’t. What’s the difference? I’d think it best practice to always have a note of who posted a particular item… many blogs of just one person do that, let alone a group site like this one.
5 Ross Levin // Nov 17, 2009 at 11:11 pm
There’s a byline on the main page but not anywhere else. Not sure what’s up with that.
6 Don Lake, Prove Me Wrong ........... // Nov 18, 2009 at 1:11 am
wolfefan // Nov 17, 2009:
“Sometimes there is a byline for who posted something and sometimes there isn’t. What’s the difference? ”
Journalism 201: An article with out byline implies that the unit is an official, organizational stand! A byline implies a personal not organizational imput or a personal imput via a second personal transmission. Hello, hello!
7 d.eris // Nov 18, 2009 at 4:38 am
I happened to catch that story just a couple minutes after it filtered through Google reader.
8 Kimberly Wilder // Nov 18, 2009 at 7:31 am
As was pointed out: The settings for this website happen to be that every article is automatically posted with a summary on the main page.
In addition, the author is on that summary on the main page. You can always click back to the front/main page and find it.
But, on the full article page, the byline is not there.
I think it would be cool if that could get fixed. But, I am guessing that it has to do with the wordpress template, and it could be difficult or impossible to fix without technical help.
So, for now, I think it is up to a reader who wants the information to click back.
9 Trent Hill // Nov 18, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Kim,
It sure does have to do with the wordpress template. I’ve tried to change it, with no luck.
Richard,
Sorry for miss. We’ll give you some link-love later this week.
10 Ross Levin // Nov 18, 2009 at 3:07 pm
At GPW, I think they have the same template but their names show up all the time. We should ask them.
11 me // Nov 19, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Does vermont have a green party? i thought that they did, but do not see anything now
12 Third Party Revolution // Nov 20, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Vermont does have a Green Party, except they don’t have an official website: http://www.campusactivism.org/displaygroups-1928.htm
13 me // Nov 20, 2009 at 11:32 pm
gratsi
14 Third Party Revolution // Nov 22, 2009 at 11:07 am
So why does the WFP want electoral fusion badly? Can’t they just run candidates on their own?
15 Ross Levin // Nov 22, 2009 at 11:57 am
They do sometimes. But I think the idea is that they can have power within the major parties (particularly the Democrats) if they become powerful enough, which has happened in New York. And they do sometimes run candidates against Democrats they don’t like.
Leave a Comment