Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 115

Thread: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

  1. #11
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

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

    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......

  2. #12
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #13
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    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.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,625

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    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....

  5. #15
    Formerly ModerateGOP
    NeverTrumpGOP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Post-Trump America
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    10,625
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    So according to you, "voters" equal people who vote in third parties? Seems like your pulling a fast one on the rest of us.
    There's no greater irony than a Trump supporter pointing out hypocrisy; Unless it's Trump himself.

  6. #16
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,671

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    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.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  7. #17
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    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).
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #18
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    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.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    09-08-13 @ 02:07 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,655

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    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?

  10. #20
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    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.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •