Sample Ballots

[Undertoad]

Yeah, well if so, only one side was anti-Democracy.

Good work disenfranchising the voters. Hope you don't need 'em later...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yeah, well if so, only one side was anti-Democracy.

Good work disenfranchising the voters. Hope you don't need 'em later...

What!!! Just which side did what they did for the cause of democracy.

[Griff]

The discussion took an odd turn but UT nailed what I was trying to get folks to acknowlege. Both the entrenched parties think they own the system and the votes. It is pretty much true but shouldn't be. When you oppose open democractic elections don't try to sell it as a virtue, even if (you think) your guy wears the white hat.

NPR threw the Libertarians a bone today with an exerpt from a Badnarik speech. You'd almost expect them to pump up Mike for the same reason the GOP is pimping Nader, but bread butter ya know?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your right Griff. Virtue only exists in classroom discussions of our system of government, not in the real world.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yeah, well if so, only one side was anti-Democracy.

Good work disenfranchising the voters. Hope you don't need 'em later...

I'm actually not that familiar with the details of the lawsuits, beyond fraudulent petition signatures and canvassing practices, and that courts in Pennsylvania and Ohio have decided in favor of the Democrats. What, in particular, are you referring to?

In principle, I think the hurdle to get on the ballot should be lower, and standard throughout the country for Federal positions. But, as I understand it, Nader didn't meet the current standards, according to law, even with the help of the Republicans.

[Undertoad]

Nader didn't meet the standards in Pennsylvania just like any Pennsylvania State Trooper can look at your car and find a reason to ticket you for it. In this case they first said that Nader couldn't run as an Independent because he was nominated by the Reform Party. When that didn't work, they turned to examining every one of his 30,000 signatures and threw out enough of them to reject him (he probably needed 24,000). This happens because the ballot petitions are completely unreasonable, and your signature is rejected if you put down your mailing address instead of your polling location... something 75% of signatories generally do unless carefully watched and questionned.

In 1996 we had a whole set of petitions rejected because the notary who notarized them remembered to post them and stamp them and sign them but had forgotten to use her raised seal.

The whole process is a total fucking nightmare of potholes and bureaucracy, and both sides use this as part of the process of denying candidates access to the ballot. It is absolutely indefensible behavior by the parties. And voters know that if it looks like a fix, it probably is. You can talk all you want about how voters are systematically denied access to vote. But those of us who've had candidates denied ballot access know that's a huge fucking sham because hundreds of thousands of voters didn't even have their choice listed and that made you happy.

[Happy Monkey]

I never said it made me happy. In fact, I want the system to be reformed. Unfortunately, the help the Republicans were giving to Nader was not in assistance to any idea of Democracy - it was gaming the two-party system. If the Democrats didn't respond in kind, their moral victory could easily result in political failure, and that is a path they have traveled quite often. The Republican attutude is:

“It’s time now for the American people to understand that we (the GOP) are a permanent majority.”
Tom DeLay, August 18, 2004

I understand the frustration of third parties, who will rightfully say that that is the combined attitude of both D and R to any third party. But at this point in time, the Republicans are trying very hard to change a two party system into a one party system, and I consider that to be a bigger danger than the continuing difficulty of third parties to enter. Four years ago, I voted Libertarian, hoping to encourage the development of more parties. Right now, if the one party that actually has a chance to interfere with the dominant party doesn't use the legal tools at their disposal, we risk the opposite happening.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Good work disenfranchising the voters.

UT, I understand this is a pet peeve, but of 30k signatures, I wonder how many actually support Nader? How many were trying to help Bush? And how many went along with, “look you don’t have to support Nader but sign here and let him on the ballot”?
Fair or not, anyone who supports Nader knows full well he’s a spoiler in this election and his chances aren’t good of getting on the ballot in any election. I think his supporters are already disenfranchised.

[Undertoad]

They don't have to support Nader; our L petitioners routinely got the signatures of both the R and D opponents. All signing means is that you believe he deserves to be on the ballot.

In other states, they have a much more reasonable signature requirement (900 in NJ, I think) and they do not have anarchy... they manage it. Which is what I would expect of the Dep't of State: run the damn democratic process, as openly and freely as possible, simply without making it a mess.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK but I doubt if the people that signed for Nader, just because "he deserves to be on the ballot", feel disenfranchised when he doesn't make it.

[Kitsune]

Another item on my sample ballot. I don't know who he is, but if he wins, I'm going to throw a massive party.

[Pete]

Hey, cool!!! I wanna vote for the Dwarf!