Talk:American Independent Party
Template:WikiProject Political Parties
current party question
The official party website lists Ed Noonan as chairman, lists its national affiliation as America's Independent Party, and lists its Presidential candidate as Alan Keyes, yet the article lists the chairman as Jim King, lists its affiliation as the Constitution Party, and lists its Presidential candidate as Chuck Baldwin. So which is it? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.29.151 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note careful deception. The official party website is http://www.aipca.org . The website you are quoting is http:www.aip-ca.org . Noonan's group has produced that site, by hijacking the previous site, changing passwords and putting in an illegal redirect. Party Treasurer Charles Deemer is owner of the domain name and is in full agreement with Chairman King. Legal recourse to restore passwords to site are pending.
Current legal interim website is http://www.aipcalif.blogspot.com
The American Independent Party held its lawful and ordered convention on the weekend of June 28th 2008 as is referenced here at major independent news source about third parties - "Third Party Watch"
Any information posted here announcing disaffiliation of the American Independent Party from the Constitution Party is absolutely bogus, and disinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.189.198 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thats odd, considering its Alan Keyes, the new affiliate candidate, not Chuck Baldwin, on the ballot --Estrill5766 (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
strange history
Let me see if I follow this... The AIP forms in 1968, then dies. Then it is resurrected (or changes its name, depending how you look at it) as the AP in 1969. In 1976, the AP splits, with one faction taking the original AIP name again. Is that pretty much correct? The article is hard to understand on this point, especially since shortly later it says the AIP has had ballot access in California since 1968 - which implies continuous existence under that name. Can someone please clarify? — ChristTrekker 17:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
contradiction
in the first paragraph. article first says that wallace was on the ballot on all the states, and then says he was not. which is it? User:Nero42 22:28 10 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Split in party
According to Third Party Watch, the AIP has split into two factions, one supporting Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution party, and the other supporting Alan Keyes and the America's Independent Party. Without starting a war, which side has ballot access? Do we wait for a court case? Paul Studier (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the history, I see substantial disagreements here. Should we include information on both factions? Or should we give each faction a separate article? I am a Libertarian, so I don't have a dog in this fight. Paul Studier (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have decided to call the two factions the Noolan and the King faction. Is the following true? Paul Studier (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
King Faction
American Independent Party | |
|---|---|
| Chairman | Jim King |
| Founded | July 8, 1967 |
| Headquarters | 8158 Palm Street Lemon Grove, California 91945 |
| Ideology | Paleoconservatism |
| National affiliation | Constitution Party |
Supports Chuck Baldwin for president.
Has new website http://www.aipcalif.blogspot.com/
Not listed as the Qualified Political Party by the CA Secretary of State as of July 16, 2008. [2]
Has new address.
Held convention in Los Angeles on June 28-29, elected King to state chair. [3]
Noonan Faction
American Independent Party | |
|---|---|
| Chairman | Ed Noonan |
| Founded | July 8, 1967 |
| Headquarters | 1561 N. Beale Road Marysville, CA 95901 |
| Ideology | Paleoconservatism |
| National affiliation | America's Independent Party |
| Website | |
| http://aipca.org | |
Supports Alan Keyes for president.
Controls the domain name http://aipca.org, which redirects to http://www.aip-ca.org.
Listed as the Qualified Political Party by the CA Secretary of State as of July 16, 2008. [4]
Claims old address.
Held convention in Sacramento on July 5, 2008. [5]
Further Discussion
I removed the split template. I think that we should present information on both of these factions on the article page, and update it to reflect any news or SOS decisions or court cases. Comments? Paul Studier (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Paul: The Secretary of State will be ruling on the two conventions (King/Noonan) that have been held very shortly. One will be considered valid, the other not. Perhaps best to wait until the SOS makes their ruling before putting up split information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.189.198 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting! Do you have a quotable source for this? How long will they take? Regardless of how they rule, I think the split is noteworthy. When the Libertarian Party in Arizona had a split, it took years and several court cases to resolve it. IMHO, we should put something on the main page about this in the next couple days, even if the "winner" of this fight is not known. Paul Studier (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- 71.165.189.198: Why don't you sign up for an account. It is free, and you don't have to give your real name. Paul Studier (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Paul, I am Bill Lussenheide. I am a member of the State Central Committee for the party, and a candidate for Congressional District 49 in Calif for 2010. I was present at the entire Los Angeles Convention, and quite knowledgeable about the events and issues on both sides of this controversy. The Secretary of State will rule shortly on the bifurcated conventions. The Noonan branch did not have a quorom of officers, used proxy voting (not allowable at a convention), and had their committee meeting via phone (again not allowable under our bylaws). The "King" Los Angeles convention had a quorom of officers, proper notification (30day requirement), did not use proxy voting, and had a live meeting with an overwhelming attendance difference. There are many other legal issues that confirm the validity of the Los Angeles meeting, however, although your facts are correct about their being two claims to the AIP throne, I leave it up to you as to whether or not to place the "split information" up on the site serves a true purpose, when, as we understand it, the SOS will rule in a matter of days on the validity of claims.
I tried to put this into the article; please improve it if you can without removing information (I thought the dueling infoboxes just didn't work). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Help! I've busted the infoboxes and can't figure out what's wrong! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I fixed the infoboxes, so I removed the now redundant information in the lead paragraphs.
- Bill, thank you for your reply. We should keep it updated as things unfold. Does anyone have more detail with sources a bit more reliable than blog entries? Paul Studier (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Paul, I feel that the entry is at least fair in its presentation as currently configured and if an outside neutral third party was attempting to ascertain the present reality of what is occurring in the party. However, do realize that the Secretary of States website does not update necessarily immediately, and can be considered dated information. I will let you know when there is official resolvement of the issues, with sources. - Bill Lussenheide
Well, it looks like the Noonan faction is recognized by the SOS. However, I think we should keep the information on both factions for several reasons. The King faction might sue and win. Or the conflict could drag out for a long time like the split in the Libertarian Party of Arizona a few years ago. Eventually one faction might change their name in which case the information will be the start of a new article. However this happens, it would be nice to keep the history in the article. Paul Studier (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the Noonan faction should be listed as paleoconservative, since paleocons are non-interventionist and don't support Iraq. Neocon doesn't fir either though. How about Federal Conservative or National Conservative?
--Estrill5766 (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I just looked it up and as of April 2009 the CA SOS designates Robinson as the official chairman of the AIP. link can be found here [6] --Estrill5766 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Time to split the article?
The website for the King faction now calls itself the Constitution Party of California. It it time to split this article? Paul Studier (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no official website for the King Faction.
The website that you are referring to is to aid voters in their attempts to write in Chuck Baldwin as a candidate in California for the 2008 election.
The issue of which factions convention in regards to officers, and control of the party, for 2008 to 2010 is still open and has not been litigated yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.14.162 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed the split template. I have found no reliable source that the King Faction intends to form a new party, and some information that I can't publish that indicated that the issue will be litigated. Paul Studier (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What was this about?
Can someone explain what exactly the purpose of this party was? What was its platform? How did it separate itself from Rep/Dem? There's a lot of "who" in this article but no "what" or "why." zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
American Party
I was there in 1968 and 1972. George Wallace ran on the American Party in 1968 and abandoned the it in 1972 for the American Independent Party. I stayed with the American Party in 1972 and supported Schmidt. Wallace was not a segregationist as such; he was pointing out how the United States had lost State's Rights at Ol' Miss confrontation. As in the Civil War, it was a side issue. Dot PateDot Pate (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong! Wallace did not abandon the "American Party" for the AIP in 1972; he ran in 1972 for the Democratic Party nomination. (I remember; I was in the field working for another Democratic candidate the day Wallace was shot.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)