Republicans pull a fast one on voters (1 Viewer)

[azgreg]

Republicans pull a fast one on voters | Insiders

This afternoon, Gov. Jan Brewer signed an elections bill that basically wipes out Libertarian and other third-party candidates, boosting their signature requirements to unattainable levels. Green Party candidates would actually have to collect more signatures than they have party members.

Wasn’t it just a few months ago that our leaders were oh so concerned about making sure that voters had choices? Who can forget their collective whine that last year’s top-two primary initiative would virtually assure that no third-party candidate would ever again appear on a general-election ballot?

Now they’ve guaranteed it.

This is bull****, no question about it.

 

[penn1954]

Republicans pull a fast one on voters | Insiders



This is bull****, no question about it.

Thats sad!
Crap like this is how we get the scum running govt.

Third parties have no chance nationally so were stuck
with tweedledee-tweedledum.

We are so screwed!!!

 

[rhinefire]

"Pulled a fast one on voters". Were you born when obammycare was rushed through before anyone even read the 7,200 pages of trash?!!!!!!!!!

 

[GottaGo]

"Pulled a fast one on voters". Were you born when obammycare was rushed through before anyone even read the 7,200 pages of trash?!!!!!!!!!

I don't think it was posted to be a 'because they did it'. It's pointing a finger directly and saying WTH are they doing?

Some things need to be called out no matter who did it.....

 

[soot]

"Pulled a fast one on voters". Were you born when obammycare was rushed through before anyone even read the 7,200 pages of trash?!!!!!!!!!

WTF does Obamacare have to do with Jan Brewer and the Arizona Republicans being underhanded scumbags?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Two points/questions I'd pose here:

1. Are the signature requirements any more onerous on the third parties than they are on traditional political parties?

2. If a political party has so few followers/members that they can't meet the minimum requirements for being placed on the ballot, what purpose do they serve being on the ballot other than potentially swinging a vote to a candidate the majority of people don't want? If you can't meet the minimum requirements, how the hell do you expect to win an election?

 

[TheNextEra]

"Pulled a fast one on voters". Were you born when obammycare was rushed through before anyone even read the 7,200 pages of trash?!!!!!!!!!

Do you have a comment on THIS situation? There are plenty of Obamacare threads you can rant on.

 

[Slyfox696]

While it appears the bill was entirely self-serving and a simple political tool, I don't understand the problem with the legislation itself. I mean, and I'll use arbitrary numbers, if you cannot get enough signatures to make the ballot, then what chance do you have of winning the election? Furthermore, I would assume there would still be a place for a write-in, so if you wanted to write-in your candidate, you could still do so.

I think it's a pretty scummy move anytime you pass legislation to gain an advantage in an election, but I don't really have a problem with this legislation on the surface (with the limited knowledge of it that I have).

 

[azgreg]

As a Arizona resident I can tell you the Arizona legislature is a ****ing joke. They've done a few nice things, but overall they are an embarrassment.

 

[Lutherf]

Republicans pull a fast one on voters | Insiders



This is bull****, no question about it.

Brewer is part of the McCain crew. They're all about staying in power and building as much government as they can. Hell, that bunch even undermined the Republican that was running for Gabby Giffords seat in the special election so that they could run their "chosen one" against the Dem (who they thought would be weaker) in the general and probably screwed us out of that seat.

 

[Fisher]

So the republicans are evil for preventing the Green Party from being able to split the democratic vote? :roll:

Ballot Access News - Arizona Election Law Bill Amended to Vastly Increase Primary Ballot Access Petitions for Smaller Qualified Parties

Existing law requires signatures equal to one-half of 1% of party membership, to get on the primary ballot for statewide office. Thus Libertarians only need about 125 signatures of party members, and Greens only need about 27 signatures, and members of Americans Elect only need about 2 signatures. If the bill is signed into law, members of all parties, large and small alike, would need 5,376 signatures of party members to get on a primary ballot. For statewide office, the bill requires one-sixth of 1% of all the registered voters. It would continue to be true that only party members, and registered independents, could sign these primary petitions. This is the same type of system used in Massachusetts and Maine to keep small qualified party members from getting on their own party’s primary ballot.
..........

Once again the pot is calling the kettle African......

 

[Tucker Case]

2. If a political party has so few followers/members that they can't meet the minimum requirements for being placed on the ballot, what purpose do they serve being on the ballot other than potentially swinging a vote to a candidate the majority of people don't want? If you can't meet the minimum requirements, how the hell do you expect to win an election?

Voters shouldn't have their choices artificially limited so that a main party candidate doesn't have to worry about third party votes hurting their chances. Many people vote third party to voice their displeasure with the main-party choices. They should not have that ability taken away from them simply because the main party candidates don't like competition.

****, just look at it from a free market perspective. If a company can only succeed by getting laws passed that prevent them from facing any competition, they probably have a ****ty product and can only profit in an unfree market. We allow our political parties to do this.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Voters shouldn't have their choices artificially limited so that a main party candidate doesn't have to worry about third party votes hurting their chances. Many people vote third party to voice their displeasure with the main-party choices. They should not have that ability taken away from them simply because the main party candidates don't like competition.

****, just look at it from a free market perspective. If a company can only succeed by getting laws passed that prevent them from facing any competition, they probably have a ****ty product and can only profit in an unfree market. We allow our political parties to do this.

As I understand it, this doesn't prohibit any voter from exercising his or her right to vote for whomever they choose - they can write in Mickey Mouse if they like.

According to your criteria, there should be no limit on the number of candidates who can be listed on a ballot because any means of paring down the choices would be arbitrary and thus inappropriate. Why should there be arbitrary limits to the number of Republican candidates or Democrat candidates who get on a ballot? Just because my fav in the primary loses, why can't I see his or her name on the ballot anyway so I can vote for them? If I start up the CanadaJohn party tomorrow, should I have the right to have my candidate's name listed on all ballots because to say no is to arbitrarily pick a reason not to?

As for the free market example, there are not too many companies still profitable who are marketing unlimited choices to their customers when only a small few of the choices actually sell at sufficient numbers to generate a profit. Just because one person may buy garlic banana icecream doesn't mean Ben and Jerry are going to market and sell it.

 

[notquiteright]

Two points/questions I'd pose here:

1. Are the signature requirements any more onerous on the third parties than they are on traditional political parties?

2. If a political party has so few followers/members that they can't meet the minimum requirements for being placed on the ballot, what purpose do they serve being on the ballot other than potentially swinging a vote to a candidate the majority of people don't want? If you can't meet the minimum requirements, how the hell do you expect to win an election?

I think it might be more a question of start-up of a true grass-roots party vs the instant spring-up of an astro-turf party or one that is already established. Do the GOP or Dems have to submit signatures to be on the ballot each year? it isn't what they can do THIS year but what will they do 5/10 years form now.

Now one thing this does is stifle competition in the two party system, I can see the appeal for Republicans, their party will be the one suffering if the Tea Party splits away and draws much needed votes away from the GOP candidate. This isn't about the Green Party or the UFO Alliance Party.

I was made aware of this concept back in the Reagan era when he proposed those who want to start a business- he used a cab company just need to car, slap CAB on it and start driving.... it was quickly pointed out in places like NYC the regulations are stifling especially for start-up cab companies. Well we need to cut red tape, this is what is stifling American entrepreneurs! Again not so fast as the difference between a fly by nite rip off cab and one just starting out is difficult to determine. Well the officials need to do a better job, we pay their salaries! Again not so fast, BIG cab companies don't like red tape but they know it keeps a myriad of potential competitors from ever getting a start in the business.

So stifling your competition is as American as inventing a better mouse trap and stifling isn't just about voter ID anymore, there is a real immediate threat to the GOP far greater than a few invalid ballots, if the Tea Party in several states can draw 12 to 20% of the vote the GOP will lose big.

Such are the fears that keep the GOP leadership awake at night....

 

[NeverTrump]

Republicans pull a fast one on voters | Insiders

So according to you, "voters" equal people who vote in third parties? Seems like your pulling a fast one on the rest of us.

 

[Captain America]

Two points/questions I'd pose here:

1. Are the signature requirements any more onerous on the third parties than they are on traditional political parties?

2. If a political party has so few followers/members that they can't meet the minimum requirements for being placed on the ballot, what purpose do they serve being on the ballot other than potentially swinging a vote to a candidate the majority of people don't want? If you can't meet the minimum requirements, how the hell do you expect to win an election?

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The way the right is fracturing, third parties seem to be affecting the republican party more than anything else. It surprises me none at any length the republican party is willing to stoop to these days in order to maintain their self-preservation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[Tucker Case]

According to your criteria, there should be no limit on the number of candidates who can be listed on a ballot because any means of paring down the choices would be arbitrary and thus inappropriate.

Not at all. My criteria would allow the pre-existing system to exist because that system was based on the actual demand. It allowed specialized "companies" to exist for consumers who want a specialized product. The change to the system eliminates the competition from specialized "companies" so that the crappy duopoly can remain intact.

For a third party to gain strength, there must be the opportunity to create competition. By eliminating their ability to create that competition, the ****ty duopoly remains.

The old method used the total party membership to determine ballot access. This new system seeks to prevent smaller parties from getting their foot in teh door in order to gain more membership. That's as antithetical to free-market beliefs as it can get.

As for the free market example, there are not too many companies still profitable who are marketing unlimited choices to their customers when only a small few of the choices actually sell at sufficient numbers to generate a profit. Just because one person may buy garlic banana icecream doesn't mean Ben and Jerry are going to market and sell it.

You have the free market example mixed up. The companies are not in charge of the number of choices for a product, the market is. Multiple companies, allowed to exist, provide the unlimited number of choices. when laws are passed which limit the number of companies possible, allowing a monopoly or a duopoly to be present, the number of choices for the consumer becomes extremely limited, and neither company is expected or required to put out a good product to maintain profits.

The two-party system, and the adherence to it form both parties, proves that neither party has any real interest in a free market. They know their product is ****. They cannot stand up in the face real competition, so the system is tweaked constantly to prevent any such competition from rising up. First-past-the post elections, gerrymandering, absorption of any real threats into the fold by paying lip-service to the ideals presented by the grassroots movement ultimately ****ting all over them for political expediency (see tea party).

 

[CanadaJohn]

I think it might be more a question of start-up of a true grass-roots party vs the instant spring-up of an astro-turf party or one that is already established. Do the GOP or Dems have to submit signatures to be on the ballot each year? it isn't what they can do THIS year but what will they do 5/10 years form now.

Now one thing this does is stifle competition in the two party system, I can see the appeal for Republicans, their party will be the one suffering if the Tea Party splits away and draws much needed votes away from the GOP candidate. This isn't about the Green Party or the UFO Alliance Party.

I was made aware of this concept back in the Reagan era when he proposed those who want to start a business- he used a cab company just need to car, slap CAB on it and start driving.... it was quickly pointed out in places like NYC the regulations are stifling especially for start-up cab companies. Well we need to cut red tape, this is what is stifling American entrepreneurs! Again not so fast as the difference between a fly by nite rip off cab and one just starting out is difficult to determine. Well the officials need to do a better job, we pay their salaries! Again not so fast, BIG cab companies don't like red tape but they know it keeps a myriad of potential competitors from ever getting a start in the business.

So stifling your competition is as American as inventing a better mouse trap and stifling isn't just about voter ID anymore, there is a real immediate threat to the GOP far greater than a few invalid ballots, if the Tea Party in several states can draw 12 to 20% of the vote the GOP will lose big.

Such are the fears that keep the GOP leadership awake at night....

I don't doubt what you say - my only point is that if it's a consistent rule across the board then there's nothing prejudicial about it - if it's not consistent, then it's just like the IRS.

Here in Canada we have lots of third, fourth, fifth parties etc. Ballots are full of names nobody's ever heard of and often they get under 100 votes in races where the winner gets 50,000 - there was a time when they didn't even include the party affiliation of the various candidates on the ballot and the totally ignorant would just go in a play candidate roulette and pick a name.

Based on the last Presidential election in the US, I'd be leary about trusting the general American electorate to be even marginally educated before they enter the polling booth.

 

[windowdressing]

Two points/questions I'd pose here:

1. Are the signature requirements any more onerous on the third parties than they are on traditional political parties?

2. If a political party has so few followers/members that they can't meet the minimum requirements for being placed on the ballot, what purpose do they serve being on the ballot other than potentially swinging a vote to a candidate the majority of people don't want? If you can't meet the minimum requirements, how the hell do you expect to win an election?

whether they r on the ballot or not they can help swing the election. Paton lost because the majority did not want her ... the dem won because more people wanted her than wanted Paton. having more parties is a good thing. how many does Canada have?

 

[Tucker Case]

I don't doubt what you say - my only point is that if it's a consistent rule across the board then there's nothing prejudicial about it - if it's not consistent, then it's just like the IRS.

The problem is that it isn't consistent across the board. It has a far greater direct affect on smaller parties that are not well established. It's be like passing a tax law that required all businesses to pay a flat, $1 million dollar business tax. It'd be nothing for walmart, but any mom and pop store would be put right the hell out of business.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Not at all. My criteria would allow the pre-existing system to exist because that system was based on the actual demand. It allowed specialized "companies" to exist for consumers who want a specialized product. The change to the system eliminates the competition from specialized "companies" so that the crappy duopoly can remain intact.

For a third party to gain strength, there must be the opportunity to create competition. By eliminating their ability to create that competition, the ****ty duopoly remains.

The old method used the total party membership to determine ballot access. This new system seeks to prevent smaller parties from getting their foot in teh door in order to gain more membership. That's as antithetical to free-market beliefs as it can get.



You have the free market example mixed up. The companies are not in charge of the number of choices for a product, the market is. Multiple companies, allowed to exist, provide the unlimited number of choices. when laws are passed which limit the number of companies possible, allowing a monopoly or a duopoly to be present, the number of choices for the consumer becomes extremely limited, and neither company is expected or required to put out a good product to maintain profits.

The two-party system, and the adherence to it form both parties, proves that neither party has any real interest in a free market. They know their product is ****. They cannot stand up in the face real competition, so the system is tweaked constantly to prevent any such competition from rising up. First-past-the post elections, gerrymandering, absorption of any real threats into the fold by paying lip-service to the ideals presented by the grassroots movement ultimately ****ting all over them for political expediency (see tea party).

Even if I accept your argument, you conveniently left out the most important part - if any restriction on access to the ballot is arbitrary and unjust, what's to limit any individual from declaring themselves to be a "third" party and demand access to any ballot in any race? You say you want it to go back to the way it was - isn't that arbitrary? Based on party membership - if my party has one member, aren't you arbitrarily judging that not to be enough? How do you know, if my name was on the ballot as the candidate for the CanadaJohn party, I might drum up some votes even protest votes and gain some party memberships from being on the ballot?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

So according to you, "voters" equal people who vote in third parties? Seems like your pulling a fast one on the rest of us.

Are you saying people who vote for third-party candidates aren't voters?

 

[CanadaJohn]

The problem is that it isn't consistent across the board. It has a far greater direct affect on smaller parties that are not well established. It's be like passing a tax law that required all businesses to pay a flat, $1 million dollar business tax. It'd be nothing for walmart, but any mom and pop store would be put right the hell out of business.

So you think requiring a party to be supported by one sixth of one percent - 5,300 voters, out of a population of 6.5 million people - is too onerous a test to get on a statewide ballot? Gee, if you really tried, I'll bet you could get 5,300 signatures to get Taylor Swift's non-existent singing talent on a ballot with those minimums.

 

[What if...?]

As I understand it, this doesn't prohibit any voter from exercising his or her right to vote for whomever they choose - they can write in Mickey Mouse if they like.

According to your criteria, there should be no limit on the number of candidates who can be listed on a ballot because any means of paring down the choices would be arbitrary and thus inappropriate. Why should there be arbitrary limits to the number of Republican candidates or Democrat candidates who get on a ballot? Just because my fav in the primary loses, why can't I see his or her name on the ballot anyway so I can vote for them? If I start up the CanadaJohn party tomorrow, should I have the right to have my candidate's name listed on all ballots because to say no is to arbitrarily pick a reason not to?

As for the free market example, there are not too many companies still profitable who are marketing unlimited choices to their customers when only a small few of the choices actually sell at sufficient numbers to generate a profit. Just because one person may buy garlic banana icecream doesn't mean Ben and Jerry are going to market and sell it.

First off, I'm gonna side with George Washington on this one.

His predictions as to what would happen to this country if we allowed a two party system to take root put Nostradamus to shame.

What would be the downside to your example?

How is too many choices a bad thing?

We need inclusion of at least one additional party per ballot, public financing of elections (since politicians only work for those who pay for their campaigns, it might as well be us.), and a proportional voting system instead of first past the post.

The problems Washington accurately predicted are real and significant. We ignore them at our peril.

 

[CanadaJohn]

whether they r on the ballot or not they can help swing the election. Paton lost because the majority did not want her ... the dem won because more people wanted her than wanted Paton. having more parties is a good thing. how many does Canada have?

Canada has a multi-party parliamentary system both federally and provincially and we allow lots of choices, many that just take up space and make ballots more expensive to create and count. More choice is not always better choices and frequently is just the opposite.