Democrats Back Third Parties to Siphon Votes

[j-mac]

ORLANDO, Fla. — Seeking any advantage in their effort to retain control of Congress, Democrats are working behind the scenes in a number of tight races to bolster long-shot third-party candidates who have platforms at odds with the Democratic agenda but hold the promise of siphoning Republican votes.

Wade C. Vose, a lawyer for Tea Party activists who say Mr. Guetzloe hijacked their movement, issued a subpoena to Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat with ties to Mr. Guetzloe.

The efforts are taking place across the country with varying degrees of stealth. And in many cases, they seem to hold as much risk as potential reward for Democrats, prompting accusations of hypocrisy and dirty tricks from Republicans and the third-party movements that are on the receiving end of the unlikely, and sometimes unwelcome, support.

In California, Republicans have received recorded phone calls from a professed but unidentified “registered Republican” who says she is voting for the American Independent Party’s candidate for a House seat, Bill Lussenheide, not for the incumbent Republican, Mary Bono Mack.

The caller says she is voting that way because “it’s time we show Washington what a true conservative looks like.”

The recording was openly paid for by the Democratic candidate for the seat, Mayor Steve Pougnet of Palm Springs.

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for a suburban Philadelphia House seat, Bryan Lentz, admitted this week that his volunteers helped Jim Schneller — a prominent skeptic of President Obama’s citizenship — collect petitions to run against Mr. Lentz and his Republican opponent, Pat Meehan.

In Nevada, conservative radio listeners have heard an advertisement promoting the Senate campaign of a “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate, Scott Ashjian. The ads criticize Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee and favored candidate of the actual Tea Party movement in the race against Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader.

The ad was sponsored by a group backed by unions and casino and mining companies supporting Mr. Reid.

www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/us/politics/23dems.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

The title of the article should read, 'Democrats, the liars, and cheats they really are' I am praying that the American people are smart enough to see through this crap.


j-mac

 

[jamesrage]

I have no problem with 3rd parties. Personally I believe there should an election where everybody runs and then the two candidates with the most votes regardless of party affiliation run in another election.

Yeah its dirty for the democrats to be supporting 3rd parties for the reason of taking away votes from the republicans. Most of all its hypocritical of the democrats seeing how they would be crying fowl and trying to screw over the third parties if they thought the 3rd parties would ruin their chances of winning.

 

[Black Dog]

Did you expect anything less from a party who's motto is "Vote early and often." Not that Republicans are any cleaner, but at least on the voter fraud front they are far better than the Democratic party has been.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I love how the most common reaction to this kind of BS is to always follow this formula:

• Express outrage
• Blame the political party behind the scandal
• Ignore the fact that both parties play dirty pool
• Fail to suggest how to improve the situation
• Feel a sense of accomplishment

TED,
:lol:

 

[Guy Incognito]

Doesn't surprise me a bit. This is easily the dirtiest election in Florida in recent memory. Grayson is also the guy who put out the infamous "Taliban Dan" attack ad.

 

[Black Dog]

I love how the most common reaction to this kind of BS is to always follow this formula:

• Express outrage
• Blame the political party behind the scandal
• Ignore the fact that both parties play dirty pool
• Fail to suggest how to improve the situation
• Feel a sense of accomplishment

TED,
:lol:

I agree with most of this but you can't fix it. As long as we have elections voter fraud will be a part of it. End of story.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I didn't say "fix."

I said "improve."

You can't ever really "fix" anything that involves people.

 

[Black Dog]

I didn't say "fix."

I said "improve."

You can't ever really "fix" anything that involves people.

Unless we do background checks on voters, I don't think their is much we can do to improve it.

This is one of those like you said "people" things.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

We can actually do quite a lot.

We could do away with electronic voting systems.

We could reform election law / regulation so that the two major parties no longer have an unbreakable lock on things.

We can figure out a sensible cross between identity verification and avoidance of disenfranchisement.

There will always been a margin of error. The idea is to reduce it from something stupidly large to something a little more moderate.

 

[Black Dog]

We can actually do quite a lot.

We could do away with electronic voting systems.

We could reform election law / regulation so that the two major parties no longer have an unbreakable lock on things.

We can figure out a sensible cross between identity verification and avoidance of disenfranchisement.

There will always been a margin of error. The idea is to reduce it from something stupidly large to something a little more moderate.

I grew up in Chicago LONG before any electronic voting. The election fraud or dirty tricks you see today are nothing. We had a saying...

Chicago, where the dead can vote. It was true then, and it is true now. Your improvements would do nothing.

As I said it cannot be fixed because it is even easier to cheat the paper system.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Even easier? You mean a system that can be remotely manipulated via the Internet is harder to cheat than a system where cheating means generating the paper to support your totals?

Oh, okay. :lol:

Well, since there's no possible way to improve the situation (why you keep insisting on saying "fix" when I never said any such thing is beyond me), I guess we should just give up on free elections altogether. While we're at it, how about we open our borders, dismantle our military, stand down our police departments, tear down our prisons, burn down our cities?

Just taking your attitude to the logical extreme.

 

[Harshaw]

We can actually do quite a lot.

We could do away with electronic voting systems.

We could reform election law / regulation so that the two major parties no longer have an unbreakable lock on things.

We can figure out a sensible cross between identity verification and avoidance of disenfranchisement.

There will always been a margin of error. The idea is to reduce it from something stupidly large to something a little more moderate.

How would ANY of that fix (or "improve") the problem in the OP?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

If not being either a Democrat or Republican nominee doesn't doom you to failure, then supporting you becomes a less effective tactic for hurting the other guy.

 

[Cold Highway]

Got to wonder what Pougnet's supporters' reaction was when they found out his campaign paid for a recording for a party that is more or less a Pat Buchanan party.

American Independent Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Harshaw]

If not being either a Democrat or Republican nominee doesn't doom you to failure, then supporting you becomes a less effective tactic for hurting the other guy.

Dude.

The third parties are "doomed to failure" because no one cares, not because they're not on the ballot. That ain't gonna change with your suggestions.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Oh, yeah, that's right -- because the two sock puppets using election law to keep competitors off the ballot has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

It's a little hard to get worked up over a candidacy you can't even flip a lever for.

 

[jamesrage]

We can actually do quite a lot.

We could do away with electronic voting systems.

We could reform election law / regulation so that the two major parties no longer have an unbreakable lock on things.

We can figure out a sensible cross between identity verification and avoidance of disenfranchisement.

There will always been a margin of error. The idea is to reduce it from something stupidly large to something a little more moderate.

1.Have two round system and allow everyone who wants to run for office to run for office regardless of political affiliation, no more party primaries.


2.mandate that presidential elections all across the country be on the same day. This ensures that every state can vote for the candidate of their choice and that candidates do not drop out just because a few states do not vote for them.


3.No mail in ballots for residents in the state unless you are crippled or hospitalized.Voting can't be that important to you if you do not show up to the polls to vote. Unless you are overseas or on business in another state then there is no reason you can not walk,take a bus, call a service to take you to the voting both.

4.Must show ID to vote.

Two-round system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The two-round system (also known as the second ballot, runoff voting or ballotage) is a voting system used to elect a single winner. Under runoff voting, the voter casts a single vote for their chosen candidate. However, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of votes, then those candidates having less than a certain proportion of the votes, or all but the two candidates receiving the most votes, are eliminated, and a second round of voting occurs.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I'm okay with absentee balloting. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to vote and still go about your business.

 

[Harshaw]

Oh, yeah, that's right -- because the two sock puppets using election law to keep competitors off the ballot has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

It's a little hard to get worked up over a candidacy you can't even flip a lever for.

Strangely, if that were true, then there would be no issue HERE.

If enough people want a third party, it'll happen. Until then, it's hopeless, boogeymen notwithstanding.

(Besides, the fantasy of the panacea which will supposedly ensue once the "two-party system" is done away with always amuses me. Does no one actually bother to look to see what entirely different brands of political sludge (dealmaking, payoffs, distorted representation, collapsing governments, et al) having many parties dredges up? Take a look. See what kind of headaches are avoided by not having that.)

 

[jamesrage]

Dude.

The third parties are "doomed to failure" because no one cares, not because they're not on the ballot. That ain't gonna change with your suggestions.

Other than being squeezed off the ballots and kept out of the debates by republicans and democrats, the reason why a lot of people do not care is because lack of media attention.

 

[jamesrage]

I'm okay with absentee balloting. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to vote and still go about your business.

If you currently in the state where your polling place is and not bed ridden then why should you be allowed to vote absentee?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Strangely, if that were true, then there would be no issue HERE.

If enough people want a third party, it'll happen. Until then, it's hopeless, boogeymen notwithstanding.

(Besides, the fantasy of the panacea which will supposedly ensue once the "two-party system" is done away with always amuses me. Does no one actually bother to look to see what entirely different brands of political sludge (dealmaking, payoffs, distorted representation, collapsing governments, et al) having many parties dredges up? Take a look. See what kind of headaches are avoided by not having that.)

Oh for crying out loud. It's a step. That's what's an improvement is.

If the sock puppets had nothing to fear by opening up the process of getting onto the ballot, why do they make it so hard to run for office?

Oh, whatever.


TED,
Referring you to post #11 ITT.

 

[Objective Voice]

I have no problem with 3rd parties. Personally I believe there should an election where everybody runs and then the two candidates with the most votes regardless of party affiliation run in another election.

Yeah its dirty for the democrats to be supporting 3rd parties for the reason of taking away votes from the republicans. Most of all its hypocritical of the democrats seeing how they would be crying fowl and trying to screw over the third parties if they thought the 3rd parties would ruin their chances of winning.

And yet the article clearly illustrates how Republicans have used this very same political trickery in the past by linking to this article from 2004 involving then 2004 Independent Party presidential candidate Ralph Nadar. It's wrong regardless, but you can't come down against the present majority party for doing something the minority party has also done in the past when they were the majority leaders. How quickly our memories fade...or are "selective".

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

If you currently in the state where your polling place is and not bed ridden then why should you be allowed to vote absentee?

How on earth are you going to enforce checking to make sure someone was out of the state for what you consider to be a legitimate reason?

Much easier to vote absentee.

 

[Harshaw]

Oh for crying out loud. It's a step. That's what's an improvement is.

If the sock puppets had nothing to fear by opening up the process of getting onto the ballot, why do they make it so hard to run for office?

Oh, whatever.


TED,
Referring you to post #11 ITT.

Look, it's not my fault that what you posted in no way actually addresses the "problem" in the OP after you went off in all your righteous rage about how people react and don't offer solutions. Storm off in a huff if you like, but it's still not my fault.