Mediaboss Marketing

The North Carolina Democratic Party (NCDP) is the North Carolina affiliate of the national Democratic Party in the United States. It is headquartered in the historic Goodwin house, which is located in the downtown area of Raleigh at 220 Hillsborough Street.[1]

The second party system emerged from a divide in the Democratic-Republican party in 1828. They split off into two groups, the Democrats, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whigs. In North Carolina, people from the west and northeast supported the Whigs mainly because they wanted education and internal improvements to help with the economy. Meanwhile, Eastern North Carolina was dominated by wealthy planters who tended to oppose activist government. Over time, the Democrats slowly came to support many of the Whig policies on internal improvements. For the first time in history voters were splitting off into one of the two parties. In the 1850s the Whigs were split by the issue of slavery. Former Confederates and Whigs eventually formed the Conservative Party and opposed the reconstruction policies enacted by the U.S. Congress following the Civil War.[2] By 1870, the two main parties were the Conservatives (who changed their name to "Democratic-Conservatives"[3] and then to Democrats by 1876), and the Republicans (GOP).[4]

Before the 1960s many of the white leaders of the NCDP, as was the case with most state parties in the then one-party South, supported racial segregation. But beginning with the Republicans' 1964 Presidential campaign and Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in 1968, many with such views - such as TV commentator Jesse Helms, who went on to serve several terms in the U.S. Senate - flocked to the Republican party. Since then, the majority of minority voters have joined moderate and progressive white voters to make NCDP values consistent with those of the national Democratic party. Jimmy Carter carried North Carolina in the Presidential campaign of 1976, but from 1980-2004 the Republican nominee for the presidency won the state.

In spite of the largely conservative bent of North Carolina's politics, a number of liberal Democrats, such as Terry Sanford and John Edwards, have been elected to represent the state at the federal level. Edwards was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2004. Sen. Elizabeth Dole, the wife of Republican Senator and Presidential candidate Bob Dole - and a one-time presidential candidate herself - was defeated for reelection in 2008 by Kay Hagan, the same year Barack Obama carried the state in his victory over Republican John McCain by a margin of less than one half of a percentage point.[5]

North Carolina Democrats scored impressive victories in the 2006 general elections, increasing their majorities in both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly and defeating incumbent Republican Congressman Charles H. Taylor. In addition, most candidates backed by Democrats in the non-partisan races for the North Carolina Supreme Court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals were elected. These victories came despite controversies surrounding Jim Black, a Democrat and former Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives. The State Board of Elections ruled that Black's campaign illegally accepted corporate contributions and checks with the payee line left blank. He pleaded guilty to a federal corruption charge, after denying charges through the November 2006 election. He won re-election by just seven votes in a heavily Democratic district, but resigned from office in 2007.[6][7]

In 2008, the North Carolina Democratic Party once again earned major victories in state and federal elections. For the first time since 1976, the Democratic nominee carried North Carolina in the presidential election. Meanwhile, Kay Hagan was elected to the U.S. Senate over incumbent Elizabeth Dole, and Beverly Perdue was elected governor to succeed fellow Democrat Mike Easley.

In 2010, however, Republicans swept North Carolina, taking control of both houses of the General Assembly for the first time since 1896, reelecting Richard Burr to a second term by double digits, and unseating incumbent Democratic Rep. Bob Etheridge.

Bev Perdue retired as Governor and the Democratic nominee for Governor, Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina Walter H. Dalton was defeated in the general election to Republican Pat McCrory. Incumbent Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell was unseated and Reps Heath Shuler and Brad Miller both retired and their seats were gained by Republicans.

2014 saw Incumbent Senator Kay Hagan defeated for re-election and the seat of Rep. Mike McIntyre who had retired was taken by a Republican. Democrats in the North Carolina House of Representatives flipped four seats from Republican held districts in Wake and Buncombe counties. The state party also saw success in the non-partisan races for North Carolina Supreme Court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

[8]

The state party chair is Patsy Keever, who was elected in 2015. The chair is elected by and leads the state Executive Committee, a body of more than 700 Democratic Party leaders and activists from all 100 counties, which governs the party.[9]Zack Hawkins is the first vice chair, Veleria Levy is the second vice chair, Andy Ball is the third vice chair and Melvin Williams is the secretary.[10]

There are forty two North Carolina Democratic house members. They are listed below.[11]

There are fifteen North Carolina Democratic Senators. They are listed below. [12]

View post:
North Carolina Democratic Party - Wikipedia, the free ...

Florida Recount

Florida FEC Rules that Palm Beach Commissioner Violated Laws in Pressuring Judges during Recount 09-Jul-03 Florida Recount

"The Florida Elections Commission has ruled that Palm Beach County Commissioner Mary McCarty violated state campaign finance rules in working to oust three Florida Supreme Court justices. It will decide next month whether to impose up to $450,000 in fines against her. On May 21, the FEC voted 7-0 to adopt an administrative law judge's findings that McCarty violated state election laws in the collection, expenditure and reporting of tens of thousands in political action committee (PAC) funds... During McCarty's two-day hearing, the FEC's lawyer argued that Stone and McCarty established the Committee to Take Back Our Judiciary to pressure the state Supreme Court to rule in favor of then Texas Gov. George W. Bush in his ballot recount battle with Al Gore. McCarty testified that the committee began to take shape six to nine days after the Nov. 7 election. The Florida Supreme Court was first asked by Gore to order hand recounts in the decisive Florida race on Nov. 15."

Scott Wyman writes: "An employee in Broward County's elections office has told prosecutors that there are more uncounted absentee ballots from September's primary than those found this week in a file cabinet. The lawyer for the employee said she discovered more than 500 unopened ballots in the office mailroom two days after the election. According to the story she laid out to prosecutors, she notified her supervisor and was told there had been a mix-up and that the votes needed to disappear."

In an article about Katherine Harris' new book, The Associated Press lied about the manual recount by the Media Consortium - which included the AP. The AP now says, "Some unofficial ballot inspections paid for by consortiums of news agencies showed Bush winning by varying margins." But here's what the AP itself wrote on 11-11-01: "A full, statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes could have erased Bush's 537-vote victory and put Gore ahead by a tiny margin ranging from 42 to 171 votes, depending on how valid votes are defined." E-mail feedback@ap.org and tell the AP to stop its Orwellian rewrite of history!

Bloomberg.com reports: "Enron Corp., Halliburton Co. and Reliant Energy Inc. -- three companies whose finances are being examined by U.S. regulators -- were among the corporations reimbursed for the use of their corporate jets by the Bush committee during the 36-day recount...The Bush committee paid the 10 companies $140,365 for use of the planes, according to the documents, which listed total spending of $13.8 million on legal, transportation and other expenses during the recount...Several other executive jets rented by Bush's recount committee belonged to oil industry companies, including Houston- based Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum Corp., and Tom Brown Inc., a Denver-based oil- exploration company." The filing also shows that Bush spent about $1 million to house the Bush recount staff, about $40,000 per person, for the 36 day period.

A distinguished panel of leaders -- including Rev. Jesse Jackson, Congressman Alcee Hastings, Civil Rights Commission Chair Mary Francis Berry, and others -- headline a community meeting in Ft. Lauderdale on Wednesday January 9th. The event will build support for pre-emptive actions to ensure that the discriminatory actions used in 2000 to disenfranchise Florida voters will not be able to be used in 2002. If you are in south Florida bring 5 people with you and go!

Aaron Cohen gave Meria Heller the exclusive scoop on two breaking stories. First, why September 11th wasn't prevented - where were our intelligence men? The FBI was diverted ever since the lst bombing of the WTC in 1993 by Republicans obsessed with Bill Clinton. 52 of the best FBI agents were assigned to Clinton, leaving limited resources available to follow up on all the leads that could have prevented 9/11. Second, Aaron worked for the NORC report (Fla. Recount) and reports that it was defective MACHINES - not people - that screwed up the count, yet no investigation of illegal tactics has occurred. Other news: NEW Bin Laden Video; boat people and children in trouble in Australia; Brigitte Bardot threatened for defending dog-meat in South Korea; and an AWESOME report by Robert Fisk, who got his butt kicked in Afghanistan

On November 12, the members of the corporate Media Consortium published their analysis of the Florida recount. Although the data proved that Al Gore won under all scenarios in which ALL legal votes were counted, the Media Consortium nevertheless proclaimed Bush the winner. In other words, the media lied - to preserve the fiction that Bush is a legitimate President, and the Supreme Court's outrageous and anti-democratic ruling in Bush v. Gore was irrelevant. In a Democrats.com EXCLUSIVE, we are reviewing all of the Florida Recount stories, and issuing a grade. We call it the "Media Integrity Test" - and we welcome your own submissions!

In its rush to conceal the truth about the Florida recount, the NY Times declared "George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward." But the judge chosen to supervise this recount, Terry Lewis, recently told the Orlando Sentinel that "he would not have ignored the overvote ballots" - especially since Bush's lawyers were demanding their inclusion. As Mickey Kaus points out in Slate, the conclusion of the NY Times (and other Consortium members) "is thoroughly bogus - unfounded and inaccurate. If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won. Certainly the Times doesn't know otherwise." In other words, the NY Times LIED. E-mail letters@nytimes.com and demand a front page retraction!

"Gore won under a strict-counting scenario and he won under a loose-counting scenario. He won if you count 'hanging chads' and he won if you counted a 'dimpled chad.' He won if you counted a dimpled chad only in the presence of another dimpled chad on the same ballot the so-called 'Palm Beach' standard. He even won if you counted only a fully-punched chad. He won if you counted partially filled oval on an optical scan and he won if you counted only a fully-filled optical scan. He won if you fairly counted the absentee ballots. No matter how you count it, if everyone who legally voted in Florida had had a chance to see their vote matter, Al Gore would be sitting in the Oval Office today." So writes Eric Alterman in MSNBC.

According to the St. Petersburg Times, "Gore could have picked up 2,182 votes last November on overvotes where voter intent is clear, and Bush would have gained 1,309 votes, the media companies' analysis shows. That difference [873 votes] would have enabled Gore to defeat Bush in any statewide recount that included overvotes, regardless of what statewide standard for counting undervotes was used." These clear votes should have been counted on Election Day; election officials who failed to do so broke the law. Moreover, the analysis of 2-candidate overvotes shows that Gore would have gained another 25,000 votes, if all of Florida's counties used error-checking machines.

"Make no mistake. Al Gore won in Florida. Under any consistent legal standard of counting the ballots, Gore won. The fact that the media consortium is lying about the results is more an indication of just how debased our democracy has become, than it is a reflection of what appears on the ballots that were examined." So writes Paul Lukasiak.

The media consortium applied its ballot review to nine scenarios for recounting ballots. Under six of the nine, Al Gore won.

We waited for more than a year for 175,000 uncounted votes to be counted. Now the results are in, and the facts show that Al Gore won Florida. But Republicans and the corporate media cannot allow the public to see the truth - that Gore won and Bush lost - because that would expose the Presidency of George W. Bush as illegitimate. So the same people who helped Bush steal the Presidency are now trying to steal the Truth. This page is dedicated to exposing the monumental efforts by the media to distort the truth: that Al Gore won, and George Bush stole the Presidency with the help of Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the TV networks.

Way back in January, the Media Consortium promised to announce the results of its recount by the end of March. Amazingly, it's now November - and we know the results of the 2001 election before the 2000 election! According to the grapevine, the results will FINALLY be released on Sunday. Naturally, we are certain the data will PROVE that AL GORE WON. Stay tuned...

"There's an elite few who do know what happened in Florida, or at least have a better sense than anyone else. What they're doing is concealing information that's crucial to the spirit and process of American democracy. Election reform was, for a while there, an urgent requirement for both federal and state government. Only there's something very odd about trying to fix something when it's unclear just what went wildly wrong (if Mr. Gore really won) or even just mildly wrong (if Mr. Bush still won, flaws in casting votes and counting votes aside). Imagine these newspapers and the like railing on and on, and justifiably so, if it were the government withholding such information from them." So writes the Albany Times-Union.

The Sydney Morning Herald on Monday quoted the chief flack for the Wall Street Journal as saying that it no longer cared to know who won the presidential election. Well, now why would that be?

The failure of the U.S. media organizations to complete the definitive study of uncounted ballots from the Florida presidential election is due to a misplaced politics of patriotism, observed the London Telegraph on October 21st. The results of an examination of 170,000 ballots that were rejected by machines as uncountable are now being suppressed by the American media organizations who sponsored the study. An apparent Gore victory, says the Observer, "appears to have been sacrificed on the altar of patriotism and a perception that America needs to be led into war by a strong president." Apparently, our supposedly independent news media believe we can't handle the truth.

"The media conglomerates chose sides in the 2000 election based on the one and only thing that matters to multinational corporations - profit. They accurately determined that George W. Bush was the candidate who would best allow them to maximize that profit. They have a huge financial stake in the political well being of Bush. And now, they have the results of a ballot study in Florida that unexpectedly shows a decisive victory for Al Gore. Journalistic integrity dictates that they release the accurate results of that study to the public. Financial self-interest dictates that they do not. Unless public pressure causes the media elite to decide that failing to release the accurate results of the ballot study would do them more harm than good, it is likely that financial self interest will trump journalistic integrity. As usual." So write Carolyn Kay and David Podvin in Makethemaccountable.com.

"It is simply false for the Consortium to claim people were unaware that the results were developing in a way that would be highly embarrassing, at best, for George W. Bush. The Republican observers saw the strong pro-Gore trend and responded with typical aplomb. A GOP activist accused one NORC coder of being drunk on the job, a lie that was later disproven. Even so, Republican operatives reportedly pressured another coder to confirm the phony allegation. The Republicans yelled about the quality of the coders, screamed about the treachery of the process, and threw temper tantrums about the unfairness of it all. Of course, they offered no proof of their slanderous charges. Though the GOP observers were publicly panicking as the trend continued strongly against them, the Consortium observers in the very same rooms claim to be completely unaware of who was winning." So write David Podvin and Carolyn Kay at Make Them Accountable.

David Podvin writes in Make Them Accountable, "According to a source whose previous information has proven to be accurate, the Consortium of news organizations that recounted the presidential votes in the 2000 Florida election was shocked to find that former Vice President Al Gore decisively won the state, and it is now concealing the news of Gores victory from the American people... The Consortium was stunned to discover that the recount revealed Gore won a clear victory. Even after casting aside the controversial butterfly ballots and discarding ballots that were 'iffy', Gore decisively won the recount. While the precise numbers are still unavailable, a New York Times journalist who was involved in the project told one of his former companions that Gore won by a sufficient margin to create 'major trouble for the Bush presidency if this ever gets out.'" We demand the truth!!!

If Mr. Bush and his cohorts are unable to guide our nation back to truth and democracy, and if our Democratic leaders are not powerful enough to ensure that formal investigations are launched, we may have only one alternative left. To adhere to the rule of law, and to reclaim and restore our democracy - we must resort to a Citizens' Arrest of George W., Jeb, Katherine, et. al.

Just released is an independent analysis of the spoiled votes in Florida's 2000 presidential election by Philip A. Klinkner of Hamilton College in Clinton, NY. This analysis gives even more weight to the findings of the Civil Rights Commission that thousands of black voters in Florida were systematically disenfranchised. Klinkner analyzed the spoiled votes from all precincts in Florida, adjusting for a variety of factors that could contribute to vote spoilage -- such as age, education, illiteracy, etc. The results show that the number of spoiled votes was not significantly related to education, age, or even voting method. Instead, the number of spoiled votes was found to be related to the number of black voters in a precinct. In other words, systematic vote spoilage appears to have occurred that was caused by something - or someone - other than the voter. Gee, we wonder who that could be?

Steve Cobble, who directs the Campaign for a Progressive Future, takes a good hard look at the real numbers shown by the polls. You wouldn't know it by watching the evening news, but a very healthy slice of the American electorate has not forgiven the Republicans for their theft of the presidency. Bush is still not regarded as a legitimate president by the American public. The truth wants to be told.

The Herald's review of the Florida overvote is based on such erroneous data that the conclusions are completely unreliable. More significant, however, is the marked bias in the errors; they consistently increase the likelihood of a greater net gain in votes for George W. Bush than for Al Gore. The Herald consistently misrepresents its own data and consistently skews the numbers to create a "recount victory" for Bush in Florida... the Miami Herald has abdicated its journalistic duty to present the unbiased truth. Their "inconclusive" results on the recount have been achieved by using false data. Some votes were doublecounted; hundreds of others were omitted. Unable to sort out the confusing spin of numbers upon numbers presented in the Herald report, the average citizen will not question their accuracy or the validity of the conclusion. But if you follow the ball, bouncing all over Florida, the truth emerges. The conclusion that Al Gore got the most votes in Florida is the only way to explain the Bush team's desire to halt the recount, and the Supreme Court's willingness to risk its reputation by ordering the halt.

Researcher Paul Lukasiak invited the principal author of the Herald's analysis, Marty Merzer, to reply to our in-depth critique. His reply was a simple brushoff: "We stand by our methodology, our ballot reviews and our reporting." Lukasiak has again requested a detailed, point-by-point reply.

Upon close scrutiny, the Miami Herald's review of the Florida overvote is so egregiously flawed that it is completely unreliable. More importantly, however, is that there is a marked bias in that unreliability that provides a significant perceived advantage to George W. Bush. The Herald consistently misrepresented its own data, and just as consistently skewed the numbers to make it look as if Bush got more votes than Gore in Florida.

The Miami Herald completed its count of 111,261 overvotes, and Al Gore gained 682 votes among the 3% (3,146) where the intent of the voter was absolutely clear. "Generally, this occurred when voters chose a candidate and then cast a write-in vote for that same candidate," according to the Herald. Under Florida law, these votes are REQUIRED to be counted on Election Day. If these votes had been counted, Katherine Harris would have had to certify Gore as the winner on November 27 by 145 votes - without examining a single hanging chad in Palm Beach County. In addition, Gore beat Bush by 46,466 among the other 97% of the overvotes. These votes would have been clear votes if all of Florida's counties - not just the wealthiest - had used instant-check technology. We now know the truth: Al Gore won Florida, and Bush is not the legitimate President. Since Bush ran on "restoring honor and integrity to the White House," we are calling upon Bush to do the only honorable thing - RESIGN!

Matt Drudge reports that the media consortium has completed its Florida count. "It looks like there is going to be something for both sides [Bush and Gore] to chew on here," said a source with direct access to the recount data. "There are conflicting results." Here's the translation from Drudgespeak to English: Al Gore won the election, but Karl Rove & Co. are doing everything in their power to spin the results to deny this plain reality. Don't let the media distort the truth!

We didn't know that the Miami Herald, which released its count of 64,000 undervotes last month - is also counting the 110,000 overvotes, and will announce its results in "days." Meanwhile, the media consortium count by the AP, CNN, New York Times, Palm Beach Post, St. Petersburg Times, Tribune Newspapers, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, will be announced "within the next two months." The Herald's "Bush Wins Again" spin on the undervote recount was a journalistic scandal, since their own facts showed that Gore won if every vote was counted. Let's see how badly they distort the overvote results.

The Miami Herald rushed to judgment with its recount of Florida's undervotes, sacrificing thoroughness, method, and accuracy to break the story first. Meanwhile, the consortium of major news organizations that has been counting undervotes AND overvotes has hung in there, through internal squabbles, gun-jumping by the press and increasing pressure by impatient editors. When their tally is finally done, the result (no doubt marked by blood, sweat, and tears now as well as hanging chads!) is expected to be the "real thing."

The Democratic National Committee yesterday accused the $8 million Bush-Cheney vote-recount fund of evading a new law aimed at unreported political spending and called for an IRS investigation of the fund's failure to publicly disclose its contributions and expenditures. In a letter to Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti, DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe charged that the Bush-Cheney recount operation amounted to "the biggest 'stealth PAC'" ever created. He said it should have registered with the IRS under the law passed last year requiring secretive tax-exempt groups to reveal their finances.

Late last week, the National Opinion Research Center completed its tally of 180,000 undervotes AND overvotes in Florida. We haven't heard the results yet, but we bet that Shrub has! And we know that the LAST place he wants to be when Gore is declared the winner is in Florida. So is that why he suddenly cancelled his visit to Jacksonville on Wednesday? Inquiring minds want to know...

When the Miami Herald came out Wednesday with the much-anticipated story about the Florida vote count, I was again hoping against hope that some major media outlet in this country would start covering the Florida Presidential Election in a fair and even handed manner. I was again disappointed.

"[Barry] Richard has discovered that the Bushies' gratitude has its limits. More than four months after the U.S. Supreme Court ended the 2000 election, he and his firm, Greenberg Traurig, are still owed more than $800,000 in legal fees. The firm, which sent 39 lawyers and 13 paralegals into court battles all over the state, is one of a dozen that have so far been stiffed. The estimated total tab: more than $2 million...As for the law firms, they are taking pains not to alienate their deadbeat clients, for fear of damaging their burgeoning Washington lobbying practices. Greenberg Traurig now represents electric power companies, drug manufacturers and Internet gambling interests willing to pay big money for access to policymakers." Bush Daddy's buddies will probably bail out the wastrel son. They always do.

"Bush officials refused to reveal the final tab for the 40 days of legal combat that raged through election boards, a series of state courts and twice went to the Supreme Court. And many of the lawyers who submitted bills totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars concede they may never be paid. Some ethics watchdogs criticized the secrecy, cloaking the millions of dollars in debts and funding that made a presidency possible. One unanswered question is whether attorney Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher worked for free when he argued Bush's case before the Supreme Court, or whether his tab is still pending. Olson, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, is the president's pick for U.S. solicitor general." Commented Larry Noble of the Center for Responsive Politics: "[These firms] may figure that this is an administration in power and that they'll get paid back in other ways over time," such as through their lobbying practices.

According to the investigation by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist John Lantigua in the April 30 issue of The Nation, Florida's black community -- provoked by Governor Jeb Bush's attack on affirmative action -- mounted a voter registration drive that increased black voter turnout by an astounding 65 percent. What did Bush do? Using taxpayer funds, the state took extraordinary steps to fight the influx of legitmate American voters. As many as 200,000 Floridians -- mostly African Americans -- were purged from the voter rolls or denied the right to vote in what has to be considered the biggest crime against the people since the era of cross-burnings and lynchings.

It has been more than three months since the U.S. Supreme Court violated all principles of law and stopped the counting of votes in Florida in order to declare George W. Bush the President of the United States. With the passage of time, we have learned many details about how Bush stole Florida, but the media remains adamantly opposed to examining these details. Here are some of the many crucial questions we believe the media needs to ask about the Florida election in order to find out the truth.

"If you count every vote, Gore wins." So says Doug Hattaway, a former Gore campaign spokesman. When USA Today declares "Newspapers' Recount Shows Bush Prevailed In Fla. Vote," they are simply lying.

What did our readers think of the Nightline show? Read their own words.

DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe took on the Miami Herald's distorted coverage of the Florida recount results. "The same study that Republicans tout as proving that Bush really won Florida, also shows that if all the ballots were counted on election night, Al Gore would have won. And if all the people who intended to vote for Gore actually got to vote, without being confused or intimidated, the results would have been overwhelmingly in favor of Gore. Any way you spin this data, you still come to the same conclusion, more must be done to protect our sacred right to vote and have our votes counted." And more must be done to tell America that Bush didn't win the Presidency, he stole it!

On the day AFTER its headlines circled the planet, the Miami Herald published a follow-up story headlined: "Recounts could have given Gore the edge." Say what? "Had the Broward and Palm Beach canvassing boards used the loosest standard in judging ballots and finished the recount by the court-set deadline -- which Palm Beach did not meet -- Gore almost certainly would have won. He might have gained 2,022 votes in the two counties when Bush's state lead was only 930." So why wasn't this the lead story on Wednesday? E-mail the Herald (HeraldEd@herald.com) and demand an apology for this journalistic dirty trick. And forward this story to all of the media that yesterday proclaimed that "Bush won."

"If you count every vote, Gore wins." So says Doug Hattaway, a former Gore campaign spokesman. When USA Today declares "Newspapers' Recount Shows Bush Prevailed In Fla. Vote," they are simply lying.

According to Florida law, county officials must count every ballot that cannot be read by a machine. If county officials had followed the law, Gore would have gained 1,323 among the 64,248 undervotes counted by the Miami Herald, not even counting the approximately 120,000 overvotes that will be counted in a few weeks.

On Sunday at 9 pm EST, the Miami Herald is expected to announce the results of its statewide recount of undervotes. On the eve of Bu$h's quasi-state-of-the-union address, the Herald lied to America by declaring that Gore's small gains in one county (Miami-Dade) proved that Bu$h actually won. Let's see how the Herald - and the Republicans - spin the story this time...

We went on high alert on Tuesday, expecting the Miami Herald and USA Today to announce the results of their recount of 67,000 undervotes in Florida. But then they called it off. Is Karl Rove scrubbing the data first? "That's bullshit," said Miami Herald managing editor Mark Seibel. "You can quote me on that." We shall see...

Nearly five months after the election, the US media has still not reported on the many frauds committed by Republicans to steal the Presidency. Judging from the advance writeup, Nightline's show on Duval County (Jacksonville) may be yet another attempt to deny the reality that Bush stole the election. Nightline's angle is that the testimony of countless witnesses is nothing more than "anecdotes" - and because the witnesses are mostly black, they should be dismissed as mere "perceptions." Hey Nightline, quit telling us how to think and do your job of reporting the facts: 1) that the overvotes were caused by specific instructions from Republican Election Supervisor John Stafford to "vote EVERY page", while he spread the Presidential candidates over TWO pages; 2) that 27,000 votes in Duval county were voided, more than any other county in Florida; 3) when Rep. Corinne Brown (D-FL) heard about the 20,000 void ballots in Palm Beach and asked Stafford how many ballots were voided, he lied and told her "a few hundred." If she had known the truth, she would have filed for a manual recount, which could have produced the 154 votes that Gore needed to win Florida. Phone Nightline at 202-222-7000, e-mail niteline@abc.com, or use their web form: http://abcnews.go.com/onair/email.html

An investigation by Democrats.com has revealed that hundreds - possibly thousands - of Florida votes for Al Gore and George W. Bush were never counted because marks in the "write-in" section of the ballot caused these ballots to be incorrectly treated as "overvotes." Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris certified more than 28,000 overvotes from counties that violated Florida law by ignoring such votes. Had these votes been properly counted, Al Gore may well have been declared the winner in Florida.

It is a crime that the Republican Party stopped the counting of Florida's 60,000 undervotes. But perhaps the real crime is in the overvote. There were 110,000 overvotes in Florida, ballots rejected because more than one choice was marked for president. Overwhelmingly, the spoiled ballots were Gore votes. It was the overvote, much more than the dangling and dimpled chads of undervote, that cost America the president we really elected. Did tens of thousands of voters screw up their ballots by mistake, or was the second hole punched by someone other than the voter?

Pat Stone is a member of Democrats.com who responded to our call to send letters to the editor to local newspapers following the publication of the outrageous false story that another recount "proved" that George Bush "won again." The recount in question added more votes to the Gore column from Miami Dade county but not enough by itself to give Gore his margin of victory. So Pat adopted the draft letter we sent out as his own and the Tallahassee Democrat published it, only to express shock afterwards when the same letter appeared in other papers. So offended was the editor of the letters section he ran an editorial against us and -- without having the courage and honesty to include this in his editorial -- unilaterally banned poor Pat Stone from ever getting another letter in the paper. We objected and appealed to the higher ups. The result? Pat Stone's right to speak in the Tallahassee Democrat with whatever damn words he chooses as his own have been restored, and readers get to ponder which is worse -- taking some words from the Internet for your letter to the editor or subverting the will of the majority of voters in a national election?

The rest is here:
Democrats.com Archive: Florida Recount

1. Did you hear how the yes we can slogan came to be? Well a reporter asked Obama, can you fool the nation in thinking your a moderate, Obama answered, Yes we Can. Another reporter asked, can you convince all the reporters to ignore your association with known terrorists? Yes we can!. Another reporter asked can you nationalize the banks? Yes we can.

2. How many democrats does it take to change a burned out lightbulbs? None, democrats believe the bulb cant change if its not a CFL.

3. Why was Obama so mad when he heard about the AIG bonuses? Because so many at AIG got a larger bonus from AIG than he did.

4. How does Obama win the war on terror? He renames it!Its now the overseas contingency operation.

5. Did you hear about the reporter who asked Obama a hard question? Neither have we!

6. Actually there was a reporter who asked Obama a reallyhard question. The question was, does he want his water plain or with a slice of lemon.

7. How many democrats does it take to change a light bulb? 5! Al Gore to insure its a CFL, and EPA agent in case the blub breaks and a mercury cleanup is necessary, a person to bail out the home owner, an ACORN member to insure that the right person changed the bulb, and a member of the media to celebrate the change.

8. How can a person get bailed out by Obama? Is it by 1. being a member of ACORN, 2. contribuiting to the campain funds of the democrats, 3. being irresponsible, 4.supporting liberal anti American causes, 5. all of the above?Theanswer is all of the above.

9. What does CNN stand for? Communist News Network.

10. What does ABC stand for? All oBama Channel.

11. What does NBC stand for? Now OBama Channel.

12. Whats the difference between God and Obama? God doesnt think Hes Obama.

13. Why wont Obama release his birth certificat? He hasnt decided where he was born.

14. The good news about Obamas inauguration was that of the two million people who showed up, only 10 of them had to call off work.

15. Whats the difference between Karl Marx and Obama? Nobody knows.

16. Why wont obama have a turkey for Thanksgiving? Because Vice President Biden will be out of town.

17. Why will Obama get a new puppy for the White House? Joe Biden is getting on in years.

18. How can you tell a Conservative home owner apart from a Democratic home owner? Ask who is paying the Mortgage. The Conservative will point to himself, and the democrat will also point at the conservative.

19. Democrats and liberals always say they are smarter than conservatives. If that is true, then why do democrats always have problems in filling out a ballot.

20. How many democrats does it take to cast a single vote? 3! Thedemocrat to cast the vote, the lawyer to make sure they did it right, and a party leader to tell them how to vote.

21. How do you scare a democrat? Have them cast a vote without a lawyer to show them how to fill out the ballot.

22. What happens when a democrat votes? Two votes are cast, and a lawyer is employed.

23. Why do democrats like illegal immigrants? They vote for democrats.

24. What do Obama and financial scam artist have in common? They both say yes we can, they both give hope, they both take your money, they both will leave you penny-less in the end.

25. What do you call a gathering of terrorists, financial scam artists, tax dodgers, and sexual preditors? A democratic convention.

26. How do you scare a democrat? Say your a gainfully employed church going family man.

27. How do you know when a democrat is lying? When his mouth is moving.

See more here:
Top 100 Democrat Jokes Democrats Are A Joke

Early Voting andElection Day polling locations are now available!

We've obtained 150,000 "I Voted" stickers for this year. Thanks to all those who contributed to this project:

Hon. Jean Ball Hon. Susan and David Bradley Dallas County East Democrats Hon. Dr. Theresa Daniel Hon. Dick Dobson Mary Clare Fabishak Far North Dallas Richardson Democrats North Dallas Texas Democratic Women Hon. Rachel Baker Ford Hon. Lynda Hall Donna and Richard Henderson Judge Martin Hoffman Irving Democrats Judge Ken Molberg Dorotha Ocker Judge Craig Smith Stonewall Democrats

This year there will be no Precinct Conventions on Primary Election Day. Instead, Democratic voters from each precinct will gather at their Senate District Conventions on Saturday, March 19, 2016, to caucus and choose delegates to the State Convention this summer. Registration for the District Conventions opens at 9 AM, and the District Conventions will be called to order at 10 AM.

These Temporary Chairs and Co-Chairs find locations for their Senate District Conventions, and make all the other arrangements for those. That includes designating members and Chairs of the various Convention Committees. This is an enormous task and they will be glad to have any help you can give. Contact them at:

Senate District 2 -- Barbara Rosenberg 214-923-8067 email berosenberg AT sbcglobal.net Sally White 214-808-7784 email sallywht AT att.net

Senate District 2 Convention: CWA Hall, 1408 N. Washington, Dallas, Texas 75204.

Senate District 8 -- Donna Bullard 214-664-3935 email terrybullard AT hotmail.com

Senate District 8 Convention: First Presbyterian Church of Richardson, 271 Walton St., Richardson 75081

Senate District 9 -- Michael McPhail 972-922-6295 email mmcphail1974 AT gmail.com

Senate District 9 Convention: Iglesia Renovacion Espiritual, 333 NE 5th St., Grand Prairie 75050

Senate District 16 -- David Griggs 214-244-5979 email wdgriggs AT yahoo.com Janice Schwarz 214-460-7283 email tamsterbath AT gmail.com Katherine McGovern 214-755-2762 email ksm51711 AT gmail.com

Senate District 16 Convention: E. D. Walker Middle School, 12532 Nuestra Dr., Dallas 75230

Senate District 23 -- Jeff Strater 214-893-1336 email jeffstrater AT gmail.com Shay Wyrick-Cathey 214-850-9285 email shaycathey AT gmail.com

Senate District 23 Convention: Kimball High School, 3606 S Westmoreland Rd, Dallas, 75223. Convention Facebook event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/1029161260429510/

See the rest here:
Dallas County, Texas Democratic Party | Home

The Australian Democrats was a centrist[1]political party in Australia with a social-liberal ideology. The party was formed in 1977, a merger of the Australia Party and the New Liberal Movement, with former Liberal minister Don Chipp as its high-profile leader. Though never achieving a seat in the House of Representatives, the party had considerable influence in the Senate for the following thirty years. Its representation in the Parliament of Australia ended on 30 June 2008, after loss of its four remaining Senate seats at the 2007 general election. As of October 2012[update], the organisation had disintegrated and control was contested by two factions associated with two former parliamentarians.[2] The party was deregistered by the Australian Electoral Commission on 16 April 2015 due to the party's failure to demonstrate requisite 500 members to maintain registration.[3] Even before its deregistration and since it became extinct as a parliamentary party anywhere in Australia, the party saw many of its prominent members including former federal party leader Andrew Bartlett and former NSW MLC Arthur Chesterfield-Evans defect to the Greens.

The party was founded on principles of honesty, tolerance, compassion and direct democracy through postal ballots of all members, so that "there should be no hierarchical structure ... by which a carefully engineered elite could make decisions for the members."[4]:p187 From the outset, members' participation was fiercely protected in national and divisional constitutions prescribing internal elections, regular meeting protocols, annual conferencesand monthly journals for open discussion and balloting. Dispute resolution procedures were established, with final recourse to a party ombudsman and membership ballot.

Policies determined by the unique participatory method promoted environmental awareness and sustainability, opposition to the primacy of economic rationalism (Australian neoliberalism), preventative approaches to human health and welfare, animal rights, rejection of nuclear technology and weapons.

The Australian Democrats were the first representatives of green politics at the federal level in Australia. They played a key role in the cause clbre of the Franklin River Dam.

The party's centrist role made it subject to criticism from both the right and left of the political spectrum. In particular, Chipp's former conservative affiliation was frequently recalled by opponents on the left.[n 1] This problem was to torment later leaders and strategists who, by 1991, were proclaiming "the electoral objective" as a higher priority than the rigorous participatory democracy espoused by the party's founders.[n 2]

Over three decades, the Australian Democrats achieved representation in the legislatures of the ACT, South Australia, New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania as well as Senate seats in all six states. However, at the 2004 and 2007 federal elections, all seven of its Senate seats were lost.[5] The last remaining State parliamentarian, David Winderlich, left the party and was defeated as an independent in 2010.

On the evening of 29 April 1977, Don Chipp addressed an overflowing Perth Town Hall meeting which unanimously passed a resolution to form a Centre-Line Party, which Chipp was invited to lead[4]:p185but he firmly declined to reverse his avowed decision to quit politics, having resigned from the Liberal Party and been offered a lucrative position as a radio public affairs commentator. The Centre-Line Party was the provisional title of the Australian Democrats party.[4]:p 185 The occasion was a meeting at the Perth Town Hall to which Don Chipp had been invited in the hope that he would accept the position of leader of the new party, which would be an amalgamation of the Australia Party and the New Liberal Movement. On that occasion, Chipp declined to commit himself but did so at a corresponding public meeting in Melbourne on 9 May 1977. Chipp received a standing ovation from over 3,000 people, including former Prime Minister John Gorton, and decided to commit himself to leading the new party which was already being constructed by a national steering committee.[4]:p186 The new party was eventually renamed the Australian Democrats by a ballot of its membership. "Fifty-six suggestions produced by members were listed on the ballot paper, including Uniting Australia Party, Australian Centre Line Party, Dinkum Democrats, Practical Idealists of Australia and People for Sanity Party!! After the ballot, the suggestion of the Steering Committee, 'Australian Democrats', was overwhelmingly accepted."[4]:p188 The name "Australian Democrats" was already in informal currency before this decision.[6]

The first Australian Democrats (AD) federal parliamentarian was Senator Janine Haines who filled Steele Hall's casual Senate vacancy for South Australia in 1977. Surprisingly, she was not a candidate when the party contested the 1977 federal elections after Don Chipp had agreed to be leader and figurehead. Members and candidates were not lacking in electoral experience, since the Australia Party had been contesting all federal elections since 1969 and the Liberal Movement, in 1974 and 1975. The party's broad aim was to achieve a balance of power in one or more parliaments and to exercise it responsibly in line with policies determined by membership.

The grassroot support attracted by Chipp's leadership was measurable at the party's first electoral test at the 1977 federal election on 10 December, when 9.38 per cent of the total Lower House vote was polled and 11.13 per cent of the Senate vote. At that time, with five Senate seats being contested in each state, the required quota was a daunting 16.66 per cent. However, the first 6-year-term seats were won by Don Chipp (Vic) and Colin Mason (NSW).

The Australian Democrats' first national conference, on 1617 February 1980, was opened by the distinguished nuclear physicist and former governor of South Australia, Sir Mark Oliphant, who said:

I was privileged to be in the chair at the public meeting in Melbourne when [Don Chipp] announced formation of a new party, dedicated to preserve what freedoms we still retain, and to increase them. A party in which dictatorship from the top was replaced by consensus. A party not ordered about by big business and the rich, or by union bosses. A party where a man could retain freedom of conscience and not thereby be faced with expulsion. A party to which the intelligent individual could belong without having to subscribe to a dogmatic creed. In other words, a democratic party.[7]

At a Melbourne media conference on 19 September 1980, in the midst of the 1980 election campaign, Chipp described his party's aim as to "keep the bastards honest"the "bastards" being the major parties and/or politicians in general. This became a long-lived slogan for the Democrats.[8]

At the October 1980 election, the Democrats polled 9.25 per cent of the Senate vote, electing Janine Haines (SA) and two new senators Michael Macklin (Qld) and John Siddons (Vic), bringing the party's strength to five Senate seats from 1 July 1981 .

A by-election in the South Australian state seat of Mitcham (now Waite) saw Heather Southcott retain the seat for the Democrats in 1982. Since 1955 it had been held by conservative lawyer Robin Millhouse whose New Liberal Movement merged into the Democrats in 1977, and who was resigning to take up a senior judicial appointment. Southcott was defeated later that year at the 1982 state election. Mitcham was the only single-member lower-house seat anywhere in Australia to be won by the Democrats.

Don Chipp resigned from the Senate on 18 August 1986, being succeeded as party leader by Janine Haines and replaced as a senator for Victoria by Janet Powell.

At the 1987 election following a double dissolution, the reduced quota of 7.7% necessary to win a seat assisted the election of three new senators. 6-year terms were won by Paul McLean (NSW) and incumbents Janine Haines (South Australia) and Janet Powell (Victoria). In South Australia, a second senator, John Coulter, was elected for a 3-year term, as were incumbent Michael Macklin (Queensland) and Jean Jenkins (Western Australia).

1990 saw the voluntary departure from the Senate of Janine Haines (a step with which not all Democrats agreed) and the failure of her strategic goal of winning the House of Representatives seat of Kingston.

The casual vacancy was filled by Meg Lees several months before the election of Cheryl Kernot in place of retired deputy leader Michael Macklin. The ambitious Kernot immediately contested the party's national parliamentary deputy leadership. Being unemployed at the time, she requested and obtained party funds to pay for her travel to address members in all seven divisions.[9] In the event, Victorian Janet Powell was elected as leader and John Coulter was chosen as deputy leader.

Despite the loss of Haines and the WA Senate seat (through an inconsistent national preference agreement with the ALP), the 1990 federal election heralded something of a rebirth for the party, with a dramatic rise in primary vote. This was at the same time as an economic recession was building, and events such as the Gulf War in Kuwait were beginning to shepherd issues of globalisation and transnational trade on to national government agendas.

Virtually alone on the Australian political landscape, Janet Powell consistently attacked both the government and opposition which had closed ranks in support of the Gulf War. Whereas the House of Representatives was thus able to avoid any debate about the war and Australia's participation,[n 3][10] the Democrats took full advantage of the opportunity to move for a debate in the Senate.[11]

Possibly because of the party's opposition to the Gulf War, there was mass-media antipathy and negative publicity which some construed as poor media performance by Janet Powell, the party's standing having stalled at about 10%. Before 12 months of her leadership had passed, the South Australian and Queensland divisions were circulating the party's first-ever petition to criticise and oust the parliamentary leader. The explicit grounds related to Powell's alleged responsibility for poor AD ratings in Gallup and other media surveys of potential voting support. When this charge was deemed insufficient, interested party officers and senators reinforced it with negative media 'leaks' concerning her openly established relationship with Sid Spindler[12] and exposure of administrative failings resulting in excessive overtime to a staff member. With National Executive blessing, the party room pre-empted the ballot by replacing the leader with deputy John Coulter. In the process, severe internal divisions were generated. One major collateral casualty was the party whip Paul McLean who resigned and quit the Senate in disgust at what he perceived as in-fighting between close friends. The casual NSW vacancy created by his resignation was filled by Karin Sowada. Powell duly left the party, along with many leading figures of the Victorian branch of the party, and unsuccessfully stood as an Independent candidate when her term expired. In later years, she campaigned for the Australian Greens.

Because of their numbers on the cross benches during the Hawke and Keating governments, the Democrats were sometimes regarded as exercising a balance of powerwhich attracted electoral support from a significant sector of the electorate which had been alienated by both Labor and Coalition policies and practices. The party's parliamentary influence was weakened in 1996 after the Howard Government was elected, and a Labor senator, Mal Colston, resigned from the Labor Party. Since the Democrats now shared the parliamentary balance of power with two Independent senators, the Coalition government was able on occasion to pass legislation by negotiating with Colston and Brian Harradine. Following the 1998 election the Australian Democrats again held the balance of power, until the Coalition gained a Senate majority at the 2004 election.

The party's integrity as a neutral third party suffered a serious blow from the resignation and defection of leader Cheryl Kernot in October 1997,[13] with revelations of her sexual relationship with Gareth Evans and her aspirations to a ministerial position in a Labor government.[14]

Under Lees' leadership, in the 1998 federal election, the Democrats' candidate John Schumann came within 2 per cent of taking Liberal Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's seat of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills under Australia's preferential voting system. The party's representation increased to nine senators.

Internal conflict and leadership tensions from 2000 to 2002, blamed on the party's support for the Government's Goods and Services Tax (GST), was damaging to the Democrats. Opposed by the Labor Party, the Australian Greens and independent Senator Harradine, the GST required Democrat support to pass. In an election fought on tax, the Democrats publicly stated that they liked neither the Liberal (GST) tax package nor the Labor package, but pledged to work with whichever party was elected to make their tax package better. They campaigned with the slogan "No GST on food".[15][not in citation given][16]

In 1999, after negotiations with Prime Minister Howard, Meg Lees, Andrew Murray and the party room Senators agreed to support the A New Tax System (ANTS) legislation[17] with exemptions from GST for most food and some medicines, as well as many environmental and social concessions.[18][19] Five Australian Democrats senators voted in favour.[20] However, two dissident senators on the party's left Natasha Stott Despoja and Andrew Bartlett voted against the GST.[21][22]

In 2001, a leadership spill saw Meg Lees replaced as leader[23] by Natasha Stott Despoja after a very public and bitter leadership battle.[24] Despite criticism of Stott Despoja's youth and lack of experience, the 2001 election saw the Democrats receive similar media coverage to the previous election.[25] Despite the internal divisions, the Australian Democrats' election result in 2001 was quite good. However, it was not enough to prevent the loss of Vicki Bourne's Senate seat in NSW.

The 2002 South Australian state election was the last time an Australian Democrat would be elected to an Australian parliament. Sandra Kanck was re-elected to a second eight-year term from an upper house primary vote of 7.3 percent.

Resulting tensions between Stott Despoja and Lees led to Meg Lees leaving the party in 2002, becoming an independent and forming the Australian Progressive Alliance. Stott Despoja stood down from the leadership following a loss of confidence by her party room colleagues.[26] It led to a protracted leadership battle in 2002, which eventually led to the election of Senator Andrew Bartlett as leader. While the public fighting stopped, the public support for the party remained at record lows.

On 6 December 2003, Bartlett stepped aside temporarily as leader of the party, after an incident in which he swore at Liberal Senator Jeannie Ferris on the floor of Parliament while intoxicated.[27] The party issued a statement stating that deputy leader Lyn Allison would serve as the acting leader of the party. Bartlett apologised to the Democrats, Jeannie Ferris and the Australian public for his behaviour and assured all concerned that it would never happen again. On 29 January 2004, after seeking medical treatment, Bartlett returned to the Australian Democrats leadership, vowing to abstain from alcohol.

Support for the Australian Democrats fell significantly at the 2004 federal election in which they achieved only 2.4 per cent of the national vote. Nowhere was this more noticeable than in their key support base of suburban Adelaide in South Australia, where they received between 7 and 31 per cent of the Lower House vote in 2001, and between 1 and 4 per cent in 2004. Three incumbent senators were defeatedAden Ridgeway (NSW), Brian Greig (WA) and John Cherry (Qld). Following the loss, the customary post-election leadership ballot installed Lyn Allison as leader and Andrew Bartlett as her deputy.

From 1 July 2005 the Australian Democrats lost official parliamentary party status, being represented by only four senators while the governing Liberal-National Coalition gained a majority and potential control of the Senatethe first time this advantage had been enjoyed by any government since 1980.

On 5 January 2006, the ABC reported that the Tasmanian Electoral Commission had de-registered that division of the party for failing to provide a list containing the required number of members to be registered for Tasmanian state and local elections.[28]

On 18 March 2006, at the 2006 South Australian state election, the Australian Democrats were reduced to 1.7 per cent of the Legislative Council (upper house) vote. Their sole councillor up for re-election, Kate Reynolds, was defeated.

After the election, South Australian senator Natasha Stott Despoja denied rumours that she was considering quitting the party.[29]

In early July, Richard Pascoe, national and South Australian party president, resigned, citing slumping opinion polls and the poor result in the 2006 South Australian election as well as South Australian parliamentary leader Sandra Kanck's comments regarding the drug MDMA which he saw as damaging to the party.[30][31][32]

On 5 July 2006, Australian Democrats senator for Western Australia Andrew Murray announced his intention not to contest the 2007 federal election, citing frustration arising from the Howard Government's control of both houses and his unwillingness to serve another six-year term.[33] His term ended on 30 June 2008.

On 28 August 2006, the founder of the Australian Democrats, Don Chipp, died. Former prime minister Bob Hawke said: "... there is a coincidental timing almost between the passing of Don Chipp and what I think is the death throes of the Democrats.[34] "

On 22 October 2006, Australian Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja announced her intention not to seek re-election at the 2007 federal election due to health concerns.[35] Her term ended on 30 June 2008.

In November 2006, the Australian Democrats fared very poorly in the Victorian state election, receiving a Legislative Council vote tally of only 0.83%,[36] less than half of the party's result in 2002 (1.79 per cent).[37]

In the New South Wales state election of March 2007, the Australian Democrats lost their last remaining NSW Upper House representative, Arthur Chesterfield-Evans. The party fared poorly, gaining only 1.8 per cent of the Legislative Council vote. A higher vote was achieved in some of the Legislative Assembly seats selectively contested as compared to 2003. However, the statewide vote share fell because the party was unable to field as many candidates as in 2003.

In the Victorian state by-election in Albert Park District[38] the Australian Democrats stood candidate Paul Kavanagh, who polled 5.75 per cent of the primary vote, despite a large number of candidates, and all[citation needed] media attention focusing on the battle between Labor and Greens candidates.

On 13 September 2007, the ACT Democrats (Australian Capital Territory Division of the party) was deregistered[39] by the ACT Electoral Commissioner, being unable to demonstrate a minimum membership of 100 electors.

The Democrats had no success at the 2007 federal election. Two incumbent senators, Lyn Allison (Victoria) and Andrew Bartlett (Queensland), were defeated, their seats both reverting to major parties. Their two remaining colleagues, Andrew Murray (WA) and Natasha Stott Despoja (SA), did not run for new terms. All four senators' terms expired on 30 June 2008leaving the Australian Democrats with no federal representation for the first time since its founding in 1977. An ABC report noted that "on the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) website the party is now referred to just as 'other'".[40]

The last of the party's state upper-house members, David Winderlich, resigned from the party in October 2009[41] and was defeated as an independent at the 2010 election.

In March 2012, the Australian Electoral Commission queried a Democrats submission of 550 names of purported members and proposed deregistering the party for having fewer than 500 members, the threshold needed for registration.[42] The Commission later satisfied itself that the party had sufficient membership to continue its registration.

The Democrats did not nominate a single candidate in the 2014 South Australian election, in the party's state of origin.

On 16 April 2015, the Australian Electoral Commission deregistered the Australian Democrats as a political party for failure to demonstrate the requisite 500 members to maintain registration.[3]

The Australian Democrats have said they will appeal the AEC decision, which under the legislation is reviewable.[43][44][45]

The party's original support base consisted of voters alienated by perceived unproductive adversarial conflict between the two mainstream parties and an emerging new constituency of people with a desire to participate more effectively in government and to promote concerns for environmental protection and social justice. The party aimed to combine liberal social policies with centrist, particularly neo-Keynesian economics and a progressive environmental platform.

The original agenda included interventionist economic policies, commitment to environmental causes, support for reconciliation with Australia's indigenous population through such mechanisms as formal treaties, pacifist approaches to international relations, open government, constitutional reform, progressive approaches to social issues such as sexuality and drugs, and strong support for human rights and civil liberties. Its membership largely comprised tertiary-educated and middle-class constituents. The party also appealed to voters opposed to untrammeled government power and wishing to have alternative views aired in parliaments and media.

The party has a platform of participatory democracy, with policies supporting proportional representation and citizen-initiated referenda. Many important internal issues (such as electoral preselection and leadership) are decided by direct postal ballot of the membership. Although policies are theoretically set in a similar fashion, Australian Democrats parliamentarians generally had extensive freedom in interpreting them.

However, by 1980, the Australian Democrats had employed the postal-ballot method at both national at state levels to develop an extensive body of written policy covering not only the political agendas of the day but also innovative and far-sighted policies for environmental and economic sustainability, water and energy conservation, e.g., through development of alternative energy sources, expanded public transport, etc. To the community's growing concerns about human rights, the Australian Democrats added finely detailed policies on animal welfare and species preservation. The material is available in election manifestos and copies of the party's journals, obtainable in major public libraries.

In a 2009 "rebuild" process, the party announced creation of a new policy process, attempts to improve internal communication, and envisaged development of a new party constitution.[46]

Prior to the 2013 federal election, the party, though factionally divided into two separate organisations,[47] was able to publish a comprehensive package of member-balloted policies.[48]

Support for the Democrats historically tended to fluctuate between about 5 and 10 per cent of the population and was geographically concentrated around the wealthy dense CBD and inner-suburban neighbourhoods of the capital cities (especially Adelaide). Therefore, they never managed to win a House of Representatives seat. During the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s they typically held one or two Senate seats in each state, as well as having some representatives in state parliaments.[49]

Following the internal conflict over GST (19982001) and resultant leadership changes, a dramatic decline occurred in the Democrats' membership and voting support in all states. Simultaneously, an increase was recorded in support for the Australian Greens who, by 2004, were supplanting the Democrats as a substantial third party. The trend was noted that year by political scientists Dean Jaensch et al.[50] Elsewhere, Jaensch later suggested it was possible the Democrats could make a political comeback in the federal arena.[51]

Following Tony Abbott's displacement of Malcolm Turnbull as federal leader of the Liberal Party in 2009, the Democrats sought to attract the support of "those Liberals who no longer feel they can support their party".[52]

Of the party's nine elected federal parliamentary leaders, six were women. Aboriginal senator Aden Ridgeway was deputy leader under Natasha Stott Despoja. Ridgeway was technically leader between Stott Despoja's resignation and the appointment of Brian Greig as interim leader.

More:
Australian Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia