Re: (minor corrections) Re: P&F: electoral death of pink socialism

On Aug 30, 12:39=A0pm, "David Stevens" <passchenda...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> David Walters answered:
>
>
>
> > =A0 =A0Not sure *what* I was wrong about, perhaps you can distill this
> > =A0 down a bit. At any rate, I'm no defender of State election law,
per=
 se,
> > =A0 nor even the way the P&F operates, per se, but it seems that any
gr=
oup
> > =A0trying to be on the ballot as a *registered* party, has to follow
th=
ese
> > laws.
>
> =A0Not. =A0 These. =A0Laws.
>
> =A0Not merely "not every" electoral party, but *no* other electoral
party
> has those laws.
>
> =A0I quoted *only* from Part 5 -- =A0the P&FP part -- under Division 6
> (governing California Presidential Primaries, and county committees).
>
> =A0Every registered party has its very own statute sections. =A0Part 2
is
> just for Democrat; Part 3 is just for Repubican; Part 4 is just for
> American Independent. =A0Part 5 was offered to this newsgroup just
> to establish your depraved indifference to the facts.
>
> =A0http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=3Delec
>
> - David Stevens.

So if the SWP had gotten on the ballot in 1976...they would have to
'make a section' just for the SWP. This is very confusing David.

At any rate, more to the point...the P&F does follow the law and, to
my knowledge, at least going back 25 years, has organized along these
lines since then and NEVER been challenged to change them.

And...if I remember correctly, I think the State CC can co-opt members
onto it from the County CCs but I'm not actually sure. To my
knowledge, there is nothing preventing anyone from taking over a State
CC against the older more ossified sections of the P&F which I think
was your original complaint, yes?

david