• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libertarian, Green Party Politicians Seeing Blocks By Established Parties

TeleKat

Banned
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
3,775
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
PEORIA — Several familiar central Illinois faces may not make it on election ballots after all, thanks to a series of challenges to their third party candidacies for statewide offices.
Libertarian governor candidate Chad Grimm of Peoria, running mate Alexander Cummings of West Peoria and Green Party secretary of state candidate Sheldon Schafer of Peoria could be booted from the ballot along with the rest of their nominees for constitutional office thanks to the objections filed by Democratic and Republican party loyalists.
Both campaigns are trying to make an issue of it, both in the court of public opinion and, in the case of the Green Party, in a federal courtroom where they sued this week challenging a number of issues in the petitioning process and the review by the Illinois State Board of Elections.
Schafer — a two-time Green Party candidate for Congress in the 18th District — said the problem has grown with changes in the election code, “each year making it harder and harder so that fewer and fewer people can participate in the political arena.”

Illinois law requires candidates from third parties — and those running as independents — to submit many more signatures already to get on the ballot than those running under the banner of the established parties, Republican and Democrat. For statewide office, while candidates from the two familiar parties have to file 5,000 names on nominating petitions, others must come up with 25,000 people willing to provide a John Hancock. (It’s higher still in some congressional races; in the 18th District, a candidate would have to file more than 16 times the 1,014 signatures a GOP candidate would need or the 626 a Democrat has to file.)
That’s one of the most direct ways Republicans and Democrats make common cause to discourage competition, a longtime observer of state government said.

“They’re not going to try to make it easy for people who are going to challenge the monopoly,” said Kent Redfield, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois-Springfield. “The rules are written by the people in power … The Democrats and Republicans will fight each other on (changing) different aspects of election law on early voting or same-day registration, but when the issue is a challenge to the monopoly that the Democratic and Republican parties have on Illinois elections, clearly the rules are written to discourage third parties and independent candidates.”

The Libertarian Party ticket turned in 43,921 total signatures, and not quite 24,000 have been challenged by a pair connected to state Republicans. The Green Party ticket fielded just fewer than 30,000 signatures and about 12,000 have been challenged by an official connected to state Democrats. Constitution Party candidates also face a similar challenge.

Libertarian, Green Party politicians seeing blocks by established parties - News - The State Journal-Register - Springfield, IL
 
It's a simple method by the Dem/Rep duopoly. They recognize that people are seeing them for who they are so they make it difficult for anyone else to joine the game. This is why political parties should be abolished and rules for ANY candidate should apply across the board. Not just "special" rules for third party candidates.
 

I know how it is having worked for Perot in 1992 and 1996. Back then it was tough and we had to have a pool of about 100 lawyers to challenge the different state laws and protect our petitions. Since then the Republicans and Democrats have made things even tougher for any third party or independent to get on the ballot. The election laws are written by Republicans and Democrats as a mutual protection act.

There is nothing fair in our election process or system. It has been jury rigged from the beginning.
 
I know how it is having worked for Perot in 1992 and 1996. Back then it was tough and we had to have a pool of about 100 lawyers to challenge the different state laws and protect our petitions. Since then the Republicans and Democrats have made things even tougher for any third party or independent to get on the ballot. The election laws are written by Republicans and Democrats as a mutual protection act.

There is nothing fair in our election process or system. It has been jury rigged from the beginning.

There should be a mandatory final choice on every government ballot. That would be "NONE OF THE ABOVE."
 
There should be a mandatory final choice on every government ballot. That would be "NONE OF THE ABOVE."

Yeah, Nevada does have that or something very similar. None of these candidates. But it is all for show as in the Democratic Primary None of these candidates won, but the second place candidate was awarded the victory.

‘None of the above’ beats out all Demo governor candidates in Nevada | Las Vegas Review-Journal

If none of the above or none of these candidates is on the ballot and none of the above wins, then there should be another election with none of those candidates that were on the ballot to begin with. The people have spoken, but in the case of Nevada, the voice of the people is not listened to.

Come to think of it, the voice of the people is very rarely listened to by all of our elected officials. So Nevada really isn't anything new.
 
If there were an equal playing field, the Libertarians and Greens would win overwhelmingly. Why? Because most voters don't like the two choices they've been force-fed for over a century anymore.

Hence, why there isn't an equal playing field.
 
Back
Top Bottom