Stein & Barr Enter Final Stretch of Primary Campaign

After winning nine of ten Delegates in Delaware and Maryland on May 12, Jill Stein picked up 30.5 Delegates last weekend out of 42 available, from six states. The other 11.5 went to Roseanne Barr.

Our unofficial Delegate count now shows Jill Stein has secured 138 Delegates out of the 185 that have been determined, 74.5%. Roseanne Barr has been increasing her numbers, and currently has secured 32 Delegates, for 17%. Kent Mesplay has 6.5 Delegates, Harley Mikkelson 1.5 Delegates, and there are 7 uncommitted Delegates.

The breakdown from the weekend of May 19:

  • Hawaii – 2 delegates for Stein, 2 delegates for Barr (THIS IS A CORRECTION, PREVIOUSLY STATED 4 DELEGATES FOR STEIN – RKH)
  • Minnesota – 4 delegates for Stein, 3 delegates for Barr
  • Mississippi – 4 delegates for Stein
  • New York – 14 delegates for Stein, 2 delegates for Barr
  • Pennsylvania – 4 delegates for Stein, 3 delegates for Barr
  • Tennessee – 2.5 delegates for Stein, 1.5 delegates for Barr

Given that Jill Stein has a 100 delegate lead in a contest that has a maximum of 400 delegates, is she now the presumptive nominee? That would depend on who you ask.  On the one hand, there are a number of states and territories that have been assigned delegates that have no active Green Party chapters, and will likely not be sending Delegates. I would include in this list  Alaska, Idaho, South Dakota, Wyoming, Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Marianas, and the US Virgin Islands – for 24 total.  There are another group of states that are wild cards – we know there are Greens there, but we can’t find any indication of when and how they will select their delegates.  Those states hold an additional 48 Delegates that may not be allocated.  If those states and territories fail to allocate Delegates, then the total number may drop to as low as 330.  However, there could be surprises, there is word out that a Green Party will be meeting in North Dakota soon, a state that has been difficult to organize in the past.

There are four tests coming up for both Jill Stein and Roseanne Barr.

First, this coming weekend we may hear delegate results from Iowa (4), Florida (8), North Carolina (4), and Washington (4).

Second, Michigan’s state convention is June 2-3. Michigan has 16 Delegates, one of the five largest delegations. Also meeting that weekend is Georgia (4 delegates).

Third is California, which not only has the largest delegation size (65), but has a state run primary on June 5.  Roseanne Barr has been on CNN asking voters to change registration to vote for her, and may very well give Jill Stein a run for her money. 65 Delegates could be a “game changer”.

Fourth, the great state of Texas holds their state convention on June 9-10, possibly the last state to determine their delegates before the July 15th Presidential Convention. Texas has 12 Delegates.

So on one hand, based on a realist perspective on the total possible number of delegates, Jill Stein may only need to secure a few dozen more to get the nomination. But on the other hand, there are 117 Delegates that will be determined over the next four weeks, and Greens can be an unpredictable lot.

  1. VAGreen says:

    Don’t forget about the Dakotas! South Dakota on May 28, and North Dakota, on June 2. They have four delegates each.

    Oregon is on June 2-3. Nine delegates at stake here.

    New Mexico is on June 9. Four more delegates.

    We should also know the results of Indiana by the date of the Texas convention, as well as the remaining caucuses (Women’s and Lavender). Indiana has four delegates, and the caucuses, two each.

    So, by June 10, we will have selected an additional 146 delegates. There may be more to come in a few other states. The Presidential Campaign Support Committee and the Credentials Committee will be at work on this.

  2. holly hart says:

    Don’t forget Iowa and Florida conventions coming up this weekend.

    You can (if all goes as planned) watch the Iowa Green Party Candidate Video Conference LIVE on GP-TV

    http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus

    Saturday, May 26 starting at 2:30 pm ET; 1:30 pm CT; 12:30 pm MT; 1:30 am PT

    SPEAKING: President Candidates: Jill Stein, Roseanne Barr, Kent Mesplay.

    In keeping with Greens’ commitment to reducing our carbon footprint, the candidates will participate long distance via video conference, rather than travel cross country. Iowa will also be the first location to try out a newer video conferencing program called GooglePlus Hangout On Air hoping to be a model for future long distance meetings and communications.

    Talk with other Greens in our live chat room.

  3. raymond says:

    If you live in WV House of Delegates 5th District and want change then vote Raymond V Davis III on November 6th. Mr. Davis is part of the 99%. Help get rid of stagnation in the House of Delegates. Time to send new blood to Charleston. Vote for Davis and donate to help him win. http://davisforwvhouse.webs.com

  4. Sam Boshley says:

    I am truly comforted to know the Green Party Watch has been safely deleting free speech comments in the commentary section. Some political comments, reporting and opinions are simply not fit for consumption.

    Such comments are justly screened much like the establishment media selflessly homogenizes free speech access for most alternative points of view. Debate and differences in opinion would lower the monetary value of the site, and would create disorder for our lives.

    Thank you Green Party Watch, you are truly the #1 news source for Greens as your logo proclaims.

    • Ronald Hardy says:

      Hi Sam, can you be more specific? I haven’t taken down any comments except for a few by Mr. Ogle that were reporting on his fantasy politics game. I only took those off because they potentially confuse his game with reality (Texas Whigs endorse Roseanne Barr, for example).

      • Excuse me? You removed my posts? This is preposterous!

        Who are you to judge whether one person’s comments or votes are more or less legitimate than another person’s comments or votes? When is one vote less legitimate than two votes, two thousand votes or two million votes? When is one person’s free speech access less valuable than other comments?

        Sir, a brush fire can be started from a single match, and a giant sequoia can grow from a single seed.

        I was a candidate for Governor of California with the Green Party in 1994, I accessed the ballot for free speech to promote pure proportional representation (PR) and guaranteed majority rule through the innovative system of the single transferable vote (STV), ranked choice voting (RCV), the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system and the Hagenbach-Bischoff method. I have seen plenty of resistance from a large majority of people to fair elections and free speech access.

        The political conversations at that time from 1992 still form the core of my activities, and I’m OK with debating people on the subject one at a time, whether they’re New Whigs or Decline to State. I have been maintaining a large email list for these past twenty years, and more than 300 people appreciate being able to work together in unity for such a project with me.

        Just because this doesn’t meet your approval, give you no right to brush of our work as counter-productive to this site.

        Your policy to delete my comments is actually quite dictatorial in my opinion, considering that the early platforms of Deja News that I was using beginning in 1992 which were actually bought up by Google and which became Google Groups, were actually a step down for free speech, not to mention the name Google actually derived from my name because of my work.

        I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to manage my comments. I do not need less free speech access and the American Green Party does not need less information about pure proportional representation and the advances being made in this area.

        Thank you very much. I look forward to seeing my comments retained. My time is valuable to me and I don’t comment here so I can waste my time because my comments are being deleted.

        • If anyone wants to learn how American voters can work together in unity through a peaceful voting system, check out a sample marked “eballot” on the link below. The eballot, the parliamentary go-ahead and ranked choice consensus voting are among the innovations that have evolved from this, and we welcome your participation. There are no roadblocks to anyone engaging the All Party System (and independents) team, and all are welcomed.

          http://usparliament.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=547&p=1060#p1060

          Provided that my comments are not deleted, I would love to engage with anyone about this, and I will reply to your posts should you wish to make a comment yourself, or you may also contact me privately. Thanks in advance!

        • Ronald Hardy says:

          James, I hear what you are saying. The only comments I removed are ones that *could* be construed as *misinformation*.

          You run a website called usparliament.org. On that website people can join and simulate a parliamentary system of government in America. I think that’s cool – I like it. BUT it is a simulation. So when you leave comments that state that Roseanne Barr was just elected Queen, or that the Texas Whig Party has endorsed Roseanne Barr, you are talking about what is happening within your simulation, not in the US Political System. A casual reader might come past this site and mistake your simulation news as actual news, and I don’t want that to happen.

          If I am running a simulation on my computer in which the US invades Canada, I am not going to report that on websites as actual news, because it isn’t news.

          All I ask is that you resist the urge to post comments that suggest that what is happening in your simulation is real news.

          In regards to free speech, yes, yes, I know. You have every right to free speech, and you can say whatever you want out loud and on your websites, but this is a privately owned website and we reserve the right to exercise censorship if we want. I don’t let the hundreds of spam comments pushing porn and rayban sunglasses exercise their “free speech” rights here, that is my prerogative. I remove comments *very very* rarely, and I think I’ve only banned three people over the last 4 years, one of which I have since lifted that ban. I am pretty transparent about this.

          I hope you understand where I am coming from.

        • Lou says:

          No it’s NOT preposterous. This is a blog, owned and operated by individuals. They do not owe you a platform. You have your own web site. That’s how free speech works on the internet. You run your website your way and Green Party Watch runs theirs there way.

          • Excuse me, but the moderator here has de-linked my reply abilities, so I’m unable to directly reply to each comment that’s replying to my comments.

            The subject here is about Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] for president, and my posting here about the New Whigs Party nominating her, and how that post was deleted.

            If a reader doesn’t have the ability to read the humor in using a word preposterous or if they can’t scroll past not just the “content but the quantity of this individuals comments “, then you probably presume that the readers not only believe every sacred letter you’ve typed, but that they also have no ability to use a scroll bar.

  5. And BTW Honorable Ronald Hardy, your comment about the the New Whigs Party was misleading.

    The link I had posted which was deleted is too difficult to locate to re-post, but I will point out that he correct information about that is that an anonymous member of the Dallas-based New Whigs Party had nominated Roseanne Barr for president. Although nominations and endorsements are very similar, I did want to point out the correct information, because as a non-profit voter registration organization, the USA Parliament operation does not make endorsements. We only elect members and officers of the group which in charge of the annual voter registration drives.

    Here is the Dallas Texas-based New Whigs Party Facebook page;
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Whigs-Political-Party/107712649279935

  6. “that’s cool – I like it. BUT it is a simulation”

    Again, this project is based on actual ballots cast which are kept as proof. It elects real people and is no different from ballots that elect real people in other small political parties like the Whig, Communist, Green, Libertarian or larger ones like the Republican, unions, corporations, etc., other than the fact that a different vote counting system is used to determine the results.

    For example, the California Green Party convention which I attended uses a “raise the hand” plurality voting system. There may be have been 60 voters. In a few years, the USA Parliament operation had compiled as many as 350 voters/participants.

    Why would our voters be any less legitimate than others?

    The data from all those mention parties/organizations regarding stacks of ballots cast as proof, would be similar to the USA Parliament’s, except for the size of the stack and numbers of marked ballots cast.

    I can happily provide you or anyone with a stack of paper ballots which are kept as proof for validation and verification.

    Please do feel free to contact me if you wish to obtain such a stack or if you ever need some other information. I will watch for your post of the request here.

  7. Why would I want to post information about the 2011 California Green Party plenary in Berkeley California which I attended, when their plurality “raise the hand” system (as well as all plurality voting systems) is viewed by me as being undemocratic and counter-productive.

    Obviously, each of our opinions on what is legitimate news and what is not, is up to the interpretation of each individual reader.

    To compare my posts with porn or computer simulations of armies invading Canada, is not a very accurate comparison.

  8. Honorable Bob Berry [Whig] for president was a participant in the USA Parliament operation, he was a bicycle lane engineer with Caltrans, and a Whig organizer. Sadly, he passed away sometime within the past six months and is survived by his daughter.

    I am in favor of working with people of all diverse backgrounds based on actual stacks of votes cast as proof which are counted correctly under that Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system.

    I view the New Whigs Party of Dallas Texas to be real people, and I apologize to all the New Whigs Party members out there for the treatment of all the Whig AND New Whigs Party members, by Green Party Watch owner/editor Ronald Hardy.

  9. Honorable Bob Berry [Whig] was also an organizer of San Francisco CA’s Critical Mass bike rally, and he was a wonderful friend, fighter for bicyclists and father who will be missed.

    The Whig and New Whigs are real people and their help given to the Green Party has been appreciated by many.

    I’m sure Roseanne probably appreciates the New Whigs Party endorsement too, and despite the oppression from Green Party Watch dot com, your nomination was appreciated, welcomed and promoted.

  10. Richard Kuszmar says:

    As a regular reader of Green party watch I wish you would block Ogles comments as spam.

    • Ben Schattenburg says:

      Seconded.

      • Lou says:

        I agree with Richard and Ben that this users comments should be heavily moderated. It is not only the content but the quantity of this individuals comments that drive out more relevant and insightful commentary. Please consider our request. Thanks in advance.

    • OK, it looks like I may be able reply to each post individually.

      Spam is defined as bulk emailings of unsolicited commercial advertizements for products and services.

      If the moderator deletes my posts, he/she is not deleting spam. They are deleting something more like what I would probably define as debate.

      A debate on spam. Is it spam, or is it NOT spam? THAT is the question. ;)

  11. Hon Richard Kuszmar, you must want other individuals such as the New Whigs Party to not work with the Green and Green Tea Party, and you must not want people to know that there are those who are for unity of all voters, regardless of political faction or special interest. Why are you opposed to the free flow of this information?

  12. Check out the names and party affiliations in the Great Lakes Super-state Parliament (ss7) who liked the project enough to sign up their own names:

    http://www.usparliament.org/ss7.php

  13. What makes comments that call for the censorship of comments so much more meaningful than others that are on subject? I’m ready to engage anyone here. What else is the Internet good for, but communication and leveling the field to all people?

    An elitist snob and a Joe six-pack type can communicate, but only when the lines of communication remain open.

  14. Ronald Hardy says:

    Thank you Richard, Ben, Lou and those who contacted me directly. I have banned Mr. Ogle from commenting here.

  15. james? says:

    a hard decision excluding people goes against green values but mr ogle of the all party systems group was being disruptive. in terms of campaigning to change the voting system i think this is pointless in the usa untill at least one third party is managing to win seats and or to win enough votes to effect the outcome on a regular basis. the main problem in the usa is the ballot acess laws the campaign finance laws and the acess to debates. any change in the voting system at federal level with the exception of inst,ant run off voting would require a change in the constitution this is not likely. a more complicated voting system would also not help the campaign for paper ballots and greater transparency in the counting system.
    sorry if this is out of place here.

  16. Allen says:

    @james?

    Ranked choice voting does not require a constitutional amendment. The city of Cambridge Massachusetts has been using it for about 50 years, and no constitutional amendment was needed for that election, much less for any other independent group such as an all party system being described here.

    The system being written about in these threads in coordination with the Barr campaign uses paper ballots nand clearly states; “based on actual stacks of votes cast as proof”.

    It’s the business as usual green party’s system of “raise the hand” system where no ranked choice voting and/or paper ballots are being used.

    People are tired of seeing the same old divisive, exclusionary psychology in politics. The voters would probably react more favorably to a unity type of a theme. The all party system with independents sounds a teeny bit more inclusive than anything coming out of most political rhetoric to me. Just my two cents.

    • Ronald Hardy says:

      My state green party used a ranked choice proportional voting system, with paper ballots, to allocate our presidential delegates. I’m sure others used a similar system. The national committee also uses a ranked choice single-transferable-vote system for multiple seat elections and do so electronically.

      Also, the Green Party Platform states:

      8. We demand choices in our political system. This can be accomplished by proportional representation voting systems such as:

      Choice Voting (candidate-based)
      Mixed Member Voting (combines with district representation), and
      Party List (party based);
      and semi-proportional voting systems such as
      Limited Voting, and
      Cumulative Voting

      All are used throughout the free world and by U.S. businesses, and community and non-profit groups to increase democratic representation. We call on local governments to lead the way toward more electoral choice and broader representation.

      9. We believe in majority rule and reject the present method of election without a majority. Accordingly, we call for the use of Instant Runoff Voting in chief executive races, (mayor, governor, president, etc.) where voters can rank their favorite candidates (1,2,3, etc.) to guarantee that the winner has majority support and that voters are not relegated to choosing between the lesser of two evils.

      http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/democracy.php#316100

  17. raymond says:

    I am running for WV House of Delegates district 5. My opponent has been in office for 25 years. He is stagnate and has no new ideas. I need help defeating him. Please donate to my campaign and help me win. Thank you. http://davisforwvhouse.webs.com

  1. There are no trackbacks for this post yet.