- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 25,240
- Reaction score
- 24,034
- Location
- Phoenix, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
"Pulled a fast one on voters". Were you born when obammycare was rushed through before anyone even read the 7,200 pages of trash?!!!!!!!!!
"Pulled a fast one on voters". Were you born when obammycare was rushed through before anyone even read the 7,200 pages of trash?!!!!!!!!!
"Pulled a fast one on voters". Were you born when obammycare was rushed through before anyone even read the 7,200 pages of trash?!!!!!!!!!
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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....
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 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.
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).
So according to you, "voters" equal people who vote in third parties? Seems like your pulling a fast one on the rest of us.
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.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?