• 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!

Republicans pull a fast one on voters

On this we can agree - you said the Republican party in Arizona had 1.2 million registered members - is anyone demanding that a third party must meet that threshold? No - they're basically requiring a pulse - 5,300 out of a pool of millions. If, as you claim, so many people are dissatisfied with the duopoly, maybe this third party can hit up a few of the 1.2 million registered Republicans for some signatures - if the protest is so tangible, that should be easy too.

How do they develop that pulse if they can't even get their foot in the door? If a party is not on the ballot, they cannot take part in the debate. If they can take part in the debate, though, they have a chance to grow their demand. A reasonable system, like the old one, allows them to get their foot in the door. They still have about 400 hurdles put up by teh main parties that they have to overcome, but at least their foot is in the door.

The only purpose of this law is to prevent votes from being pilfered by other options (libertarians taking votes from republicans and potentially causing a win for democrats). Now, instead of actually providing a better product, the parties decide to make sure that the pilfering cannot occur. They utilize the system to avoid making improvements.

Unfortunately, humanity is ****ing retarded, so the people who are dissatisfied with the options (most people) will still eat the dogfood they've been fed because they buy into the line of bull**** about "the lesser of two evils". Instead of demanding that the market be allowed to decide unimpeded, people simply surrender to the dichotomy.
 
How do they develop that pulse if they can't even get their foot in the door? If a party is not on the ballot, they cannot take part in the debate. If they can take part in the debate, though, they have a chance to grow their demand. A reasonable system, like the old one, allows them to get their foot in the door. They still have about 400 hurdles put up by teh main parties that they have to overcome, but at least their foot is in the door.

The only purpose of this law is to prevent votes from being pilfered by other options (libertarians taking votes from republicans and potentially causing a win for democrats). Now, instead of actually providing a better product, the parties decide to make sure that the pilfering cannot occur. They utilize the system to avoid making improvements.

Unfortunately, humanity is ****ing retarded, so the people who are dissatisfied with the options (most people) will still eat the dogfood they've been fed because they buy into the line of bull**** about "the lesser of two evils". Instead of demanding that the market be allowed to decide unimpeded, people simply surrender to the dichotomy.

New York State requires 50,000 signatures. I'll list others if you'd like.
 
As an aside, I was just reviewing ballot access requirements for various other states and Arizona's are not out of line and are lower than many.

If true, it makes the attempt to paint Arizona as some Republican backwater attempting to steal elections partisan nonsense.

Oh, the democrats are just as bad, if not worse. They are just as interested in stifling the competition, especially if the competition can draw from their bases.
 
New York State requires 50,000 signatures. I'll list others if you'd like.

New York's system sucks, too. Illinois is even worse. :shrug: why do you think showing that the two parties do it everywhere would affect my stance? I despise both parties equally.
 
Oh, the democrats are just as bad, if not worse. They are just as interested in stifling the competition, especially if the competition can draw from their bases.

Fair enough - cynical, but fair - I just see picking on Arizona to be the usual pastime of the national media - if it was truly a problem, other states would have been outed for similar or worse practices and the Supreme Court would not have upheld such requirements as constitutional.
 
Fair enough - cynical, but fair - I just see picking on Arizona to be the usual pastime of the national media - if it was truly a problem, other states would have been outed for similar or worse practices and the Supreme Court would not have upheld such requirements as constitutional.

I think it's a problem, but it's everywhere (Even the supreme court, which is filled with main-party people). Arizona is not the worst offender, IMO, despite this law change. My comments are more general and directed at both parties, but in the context of this thread it comes across as more toward the republicans, so I get your point.

And you're absolutely right, I'm incredibly cynical. :lol:
 
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.

Competition doesn't come from simply getting on a ballot but by getting people to support you. I could certainly get behind a lot of what you're saying if the cutoff was especially punitive but expecting a political party to find 5,000 supporters before they're allowed on a ballot seems pretty reasonable to me, particularly when the state's population is several million!

The opportunity still exists for even the most fringe of fringe groups. They just need to convince a very small percentage of the population of their ideas before they're allowed on a ballot. Of course you don't need to be on a ballot to receive a vote anyway.
 
Competition doesn't come from simply getting on a ballot but by getting people to support you. I could certainly get behind a lot of what you're saying if the cutoff was especially punitive but expecting a political party to find 5,000 supporters before they're allowed on a ballot seems pretty reasonable to me, particularly when the state's population is several million!

The opportunity still exists for even the most fringe of fringe groups. They just need to convince a very small percentage of the population of their ideas before they're allowed on a ballot. Of course you don't need to be on a ballot to receive a vote anyway.

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.
 
Time for my two hour physical therapy session... more accurately referred to by me as my interaction with sadists from another solar system! :wow:

Later....
 
I would bet dollars to donuts that the Democrats were in on this too, since the Green Party has also been shut out. Therefore, the title of this thread should read "Democrats pull a fast one on the voters". :mrgreen:
 
I don't even know how a person could even come to that conclusion based on what I said.

Here's my thinking process: The title of this thread is "Republicans pull a fast one on voters." There are many problems with the grammar in that statement, such as the fact that Republicans are voters too! I sarcastically implied that he seems to think that only third party votes should count and Republican votes don't count. Otherwise why would he write, Republicans pull a fast one on voters? As I mentioned before Republicans are voters too!

How could someone even consider that what I meant was that third parties don't count. While I believe that it's a waste to vote for a third party, I certainly don't want to stop people from voting for Mickey Mouse if they feel like it. I'll just strongly advise them against doing that. I do like this law though. It is in fact even better than it was. Changes in the bill indicates that each potential nominee had to receive one half of one percent of the voter registration of the party of the candidate in at least three counties in the state. The final passing of the bill indicates that you now need ONE‑SIXTH of one per cent of the voter registration of the party of the candidate in at least three counties in the state. So, unless your people cannot muster 1/6 of 1% of the signatures required, I'm not sure what your complaining about. and btw in most real world situations, 1/6 of 1% DOESN'T COUNT!!!!

Here's the text and the changes for people curious. Please research!!!!
Bill Text: AZ HB2305 | 2013 | Fifty-first Legislature 1st Regular | Engrossed | LegiScan

The title of the thread is required by DP guidelines to be the exact same title as article quoted so I had no choice.
 
I wonder if....

Party A sets up, covertly, party C to attract people who will not vote for Party A, just to keep them from voting for party B?

If you can't get a vote, take a vote instead.

Was Ralph Nader and Ross Perot plants?

Personally I think that if you don't like any of the candidates on the ballot you should be allowed to take one vote away from the candidate that you like the least.
 
I don't even know how a person could even come to that conclusion based on what I said.

Here's my thinking process: The title of this thread is "Republicans pull a fast one on voters." There are many problems with the grammar in that statement, such as the fact that Republicans are voters too! I sarcastically implied that he seems to think that only third party votes should count and Republican votes don't count. Otherwise why would he write, Republicans pull a fast one on voters? As I mentioned before Republicans are voters too!

How could someone even consider that what I meant was that third parties don't count. While I believe that it's a waste to vote for a third party, I certainly don't want to stop people from voting for Mickey Mouse if they feel like it. I'll just strongly advise them against doing that. I do like this law though. It is in fact even better than it was. Changes in the bill indicates that each potential nominee had to receive one half of one percent of the voter registration of the party of the candidate in at least three counties in the state. The final passing of the bill indicates that you now need ONE‑SIXTH of one per cent of the voter registration of the party of the candidate in at least three counties in the state. So, unless your people cannot muster 1/6 of 1% of the signatures required, I'm not sure what your complaining about. and btw in most real world situations, 1/6 of 1% DOESN'T COUNT!!!!

Here's the text and the changes for people curious. Please research!!!!
Bill Text: AZ HB2305 | 2013 | Fifty-first Legislature 1st Regular | Engrossed | LegiScan

Hence why I asked... And, the Republicans in Arizona are, essentially, eliminating third party potential votes in self-preservation. I also see you said voting for a third-party is a wasted vote - I'm sorry you think that but, when you compare the two major parties (Rs vs. Ds) they are both ineffective and, basically, get nothing done; they also play both sides of the coin. I could see your point if you said voting, in general, was a waste of time but, not voting for a third-party candidate so we can actually attempt to change the **** show that is the two-party system in D.C. now. Why do you strongly advise against voting for third-party candidates?
 
Personally I think that if you don't like any of the candidates on the ballot you should be allowed to take one vote away from the candidate that you like the least.

I'm for "None of the above".
 
Why do you strongly advise against voting for third-party candidates?

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.
 
The title of the thread is required by DP guidelines to be the exact same title as article quoted so I had no choice.

well then, I criticize the author of the articles then.
 
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.

I fully believe Gary Johnson was a far better choice than Obama and Romney.
 
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.

Who brought up Ron Paul? Did I endorse him? No. Quality straw man on your part.

YES You can't name any candidate that is better, you can name ones that may be suited more towards your ideology, but they are still hypocrites and crooks as well!

Perhaps previously in certain instances, but you're making a blatant generalization.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom