Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 115

Thread: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    St. Petersburg
    Last Seen
    10-06-16 @ 12:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,875

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by ModerateGOP View Post
    Because no matter who you pit against them in the two party system, the third party choices are not any better!!!! Yet somehow, you guys think if you elect one third party person AKA Ron Paul...Then they will somehow be allowed to change the system from the inside. I'm not that naiive.
    Nothing short of a revolution can return this countries government to the people now.

  2. #72
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,190

    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?
    Perhaps not this election, but being unable to put a candidate on a ballot hinders the chance to get publicity and increase support for subsequent elections where they might eventually have enough to win an election. If you don't have a candidate in the race people are going to pay even less attention to you than they already do to third parties. It turns their very slim chances they have now into almost non-existent.
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    10-24-13 @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    913

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    My problem with this particular change is not the actual number, but the fact that it was fairly unnecessary. It's certainly much worse in other places. That being said, I just hate the duopoly, so I tend to rant against it at every opportunity.
    I don't know whether it's necessary but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

    The two party system isn't perfect but I think it's better than the alternative.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    10-24-13 @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    913

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    Perhaps not this election, but being unable to put a candidate on a ballot hinders the chance to get publicity and increase support for subsequent elections where they might eventually have enough to win an election. If you don't have a candidate in the race people are going to pay even less attention to you than they already do to third parties. It turns their very slim chances they have now into almost non-existent.
    I don't know about that.

    In fact I would bet coverage of this has given these small fringe parties far more publicity than what they got while on the ballot.

  5. #75
    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 Dapper Andy View Post
    I don't know whether it's necessary but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
    I'm of the belief that any time something is legislated for the sole purpose of limiting the peoples' democratic decision-making process, it is unreasonable

    The two party system isn't perfect but I think it's better than the alternative.
    See, I think the two-party system is ****ed, and that the inevitable conclusion of remaining with it is totalitarianism and eventual destruction.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

    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?
    The problem is: Denying access to more voters. If you can't even get on a platform and try to sell your point of view to the other voters out there that are not members of your party, what use is it to even have third parties? May as well prescribe a 2 party plutocracy. In either case, this is pretty scummy. I have no problem with mocking 3rd party votes, but denying them the right to even get on a ballot is pretty ****ty if they have thousands of members as it is.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 06-20-13 at 03:58 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #77
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    wait a minute.

    you mean people in power are using their power to prevent them from losing their power.

    "that's umpossible"

    that's it, I'm now a democrat. they would never do that!

    /sarcasm

  8. #78
    Pragmatist
    AlabamaPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 11:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,834

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Can anyone provide a link to the bill that was actually passed? The bill referenced in the OP only mentions AZ HB 2305 in which I can find no reference to increased ballot access requirements...
    I don't often change my signature, but this was just too over the top to let anyone forget with what this country is up against...
    Quote Originally Posted by James D Hill View Post
    I am for gay marriage because it ticks off Jesus freaks and social conservatives. Gays are also good voters because the vote for my side so I fight next to them.

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    10-24-13 @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    913

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I'm of the belief that any time something is legislated for the sole purpose of limiting the peoples' democratic decision-making process, it is unreasonable
    There has to be some limits or else there isn't a democratic process at all.

  10. #80
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,189

    Re: Republicans pull a fast one on voters

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    Perhaps not this election, but being unable to put a candidate on a ballot hinders the chance to get publicity and increase support for subsequent elections where they might eventually have enough to win an election. If you don't have a candidate in the race people are going to pay even less attention to you than they already do to third parties. It turns their very slim chances they have now into almost non-existent.
    Perhaps it would be wiser for people trying to build a viable third party to actually build the party first and field candidates secondly. You need to build the movement before you elect representatives of that movement. If you take the Tea Party, as an example, they didn't field candidates under the Tea Party banner but built their movement to the point where they could affect the outcome of some Republican primaries. They may be at a point where they could establish themselves as a political party and field candidates but for now they seem to be satisfied with trying to bring candidates in at least one of the two main parties more in line with their views of government - that's probably a wise strategy. The Green Party here in Canada did much the same kind of thing as they built up support before they formalized themselves as a political party - even with the broad amount of publicity they've received, they've only elected one member of parliament to date - that's how hard it is. So fielding candidates is not necessarily the right way to go if you want to shake up the system.
    "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.

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •