• 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

"Pulled a fast one on voters". Were you born when obammycare was rushed through before anyone even read the 7,200 pages of trash?!!!!!!!!!

What has that got to do with AZ law disallowing third-party candidates from participate in their state's primary elections? . The article in the OP is referring to elections at the state level not the federal level. Moreover, the thread isn't even about how bills become law. Let's try to stay on point, shall we.
 
The disallowance of a third-party in a state's primary election for STATE officials seems ok.

However, if the state is trying to affect federal elections, which so many RED and PURPLE ones are, they have crossed the line of the 10th amendment and entered the beginning reasoning of the cause of the civil war.

What has that got to do with AZ law disallowing third-party candidates from participate in their state's primary elections? . The article in the OP is referring to elections at the state level not the federal level. Moreover, the thread isn't even about how bills become law. Let's try to stay on point, shall we.
 
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.

Yes, but you know that unless the voters make a collective effort to vote for a candidate who isn't affiliated with either of the two primary parties, even voting "None of the Above" wouldn't stand a chance. Such a candidate wouldn't stand a chance because you'd never get a grassroots campaign large enough to get behind such an unknown, not without big dollars behind him/her.

Nice try, but we both know very few write-in candidates if any every get elected. They just don't have the financial clout behind them.
 
Yes, but you know that unless the voters make a collective effort to vote for a candidate who isn't affiliated with either of the two primary parties, even voting "None of the Above" wouldn't stand a chance. Such a candidate wouldn't stand a chance because you'd never get a grassroots campaign large enough to get behind such an unknown, not without big dollars behind him/her.

Nice try, but we both know very few write-in candidates if any every get elected. They just don't have the financial clout behind them.

What makes you think that having no ballot access requirements would suddenly make people vote for someone who's unknown? My point remains, if you can't get 5,300 signatures statewide to get your candidate's name on a ballot you shouldn't be on the ballot because you haven't a hope in hell of getting elected.

Using your logic, we should open up the Olympics to anyone on two legs who wants to try the hundred yard dash - who knows, they may win, they just never had the chance - hell, why limit it to those with two legs - maybe some could hand-stand it pretty fast to the finish line.
 
Yes, but you know that unless the voters make a collective effort to vote for a candidate who isn't affiliated with either of the two primary parties, even voting "None of the Above" wouldn't stand a chance. Such a candidate wouldn't stand a chance because you'd never get a grassroots campaign large enough to get behind such an unknown, not without big dollars behind him/her.

Nice try, but we both know very few write-in candidates if any every get elected. They just don't have the financial clout behind them.

What makes you think that having no ballot access requirements would suddenly make people vote for someone who's unknown? My point remains, if you can't get 5,300 signatures statewide to get your candidate's name on a ballot you shouldn't be on the ballot because you haven't a hope in hell of getting elected.

Using your logic, we should open up the Olympics to anyone on two legs who wants to try the hundred yard dash - who knows, they may win, they just never had the chance - hell, why limit it to those with two legs - maybe some could hand-stand it pretty fast to the finish line.

And there you go misconstruing my comments. So, let me try it again...

Unless people get to know a third-party candidate (i.e., his political views and positions on that are important to the voters), they are very unlikely to vote a third-party ticket. The largest set-back to such "get out the third-party vote" campaigns is campaign finance. And as we've seen even in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential elections (referring to the GOP primaries in particular), BIG dollars drowned out the voice(s) of their campaign rivals. I mean, even Newt Gingrich had trouble competing with the BIG money political machine that backed Mitt Romney in the GOP primaries and he's the loudest mouth in politics I know. Of course, he wasn't on a third-party ticket. So, he's not the best example to use, but Ron Paul was and look at how far he got despite having the most well received political views among all the GOP candidates?

That's the point I was trying to make which clearly flew right over your head.
 
Last edited:
And there you go misconstruing my comments. So, let me try it again...

Unless people get to know a third-party candidate (i.e., his political views and positions on that are important to the voters), they are very unlikely to vote a third-party ticket. The largest set-back to such "get out the third-party vote" campaigns is campaign finance. And as we've seen even in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential elections (referring to the GOP primaries in particular), BIG dollars drowned out the voice(s) of their campaign rivals. I mean, even Newt Gingrich had trouble competing with the BIG money political machine that backed Mitt Romney in the GOP primaries and he's the loudest mouth in politics I know. Of course, he wasn't on a third-party ticket. So, he's not the best example to use, but Ron Paul was and look at how far he got despite having the most well received political views among all the GOP candidates?

That's the point I was trying to make which clearly flew right over your head.

It didn't fly over my head at all - it ignored my previous comments where I indicated that anyone starting a third party movement should concentrate on getting that movement established long before they start fielding candidates in statewide races. Getting your name on a ballot when nobody knows who you are or what you stand for is putting the cart before the horse. Unless your intent is to be a protest nuisance, you don't build a movement with unknown candidates. You do what the Tea Party did - they established a grassroots movement, held rallies to allow their policy positions to be discussed/debated, signed up people who believed in those positions and wanted to keep in communication with Tea Party groups and then tried to coordinate with other Tea Party groups around the country. The Tea Party is/was a movement, not a political party, and they didn't go around putting unknown Tea Party candidates on ballots. They signed up in Republican primaries and looked for people who shared their views that they could support. They're at the point now where they could, easily, establish themselves as a national political party or just focus in particular states, and they'd have the grassroots support to get their candidates names on ballots without any problem getting 5,300 signatures to qualify.

You're suggesting that no-names should be able to get their names on ballots so that they can promote their names and their positions and grow a party around them. I'm suggesting that method is "bass-ackward". People don't need to get to know a third party candidate so much as they need to get to know what the third party is all about. A dynamic individual like Ross Perot can charismatically generate a lot of press attention but even then it's one man without a party. Establish a movement first, party second, candidates last.
 
It didn't fly over my head at all - it ignored my previous comments where I indicated that anyone starting a third party movement should concentrate on getting that movement established long before they start fielding candidates in statewide races. Getting your name on a ballot when nobody knows who you are or what you stand for is putting the cart before the horse. Unless your intent is to be a protest nuisance, you don't build a movement with unknown candidates. You do what the Tea Party did - they established a grassroots movement, held rallies to allow their policy positions to be discussed/debated, signed up people who believed in those positions and wanted to keep in communication with Tea Party groups and then tried to coordinate with other Tea Party groups around the country. The Tea Party is/was a movement, not a political party, and they didn't go around putting unknown Tea Party candidates on ballots. They signed up in Republican primaries and looked for people who shared their views that they could support. They're at the point now where they could, easily, establish themselves as a national political party or just focus in particular states, and they'd have the grassroots support to get their candidates names on ballots without any problem getting 5,300 signatures to qualify.

You're suggesting that no-names should be able to get their names on ballots so that they can promote their names and their positions and grow a party around them. I'm suggesting that method is "bass-ackward". People don't need to get to know a third party candidate so much as they need to get to know what the third party is all about. A dynamic individual like Ross Perot can charismatically generate a lot of press attention but even then it's one man without a party. Establish a movement first, party second, candidates last.

Actually, you were the one who suggested that the voters could use write-in candidates when you said:

CanadaJohn said:
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.

Your words, not mine. I merely explained that unless the candidate had significant financial backing his candidacy and, thus, his campaign really doesn't stand a chance of getting recognized by the masses. However, I do agree with you that without establishing a grassroots movement first and the party second, the candidate - without the financial backing - doesn't stand a chance even if said candidate is Mickey Mouse.
 
All this stupid whining. You call them "third party candidates", but what is addressed here is truly more your "5th, 6th, and umpteenth party candidates."

Every election when we vote, its a joke to have all these lower-ticket turds on the ballot. Not only Don Quixotes that I never heard of, but PARTIES that I never heard of !!

The problem in AZ is not getting these yahoos on the ballot. Its that you keep sending McCain back. It hasn't a damn thing to do with these trifling obscure candidates.
 
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 Libbos are mad, because now they can't muck up the process with obscure parties that have no chance of winning.
 
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 agree but at the same time I understand some people run for office not to win the election but to have their voices and their constituent's concerns heard in the campaigns. Maybe a campaign for office isn't the appropriate place to air one's positions on the issues, especially minority positions and only should be about electing viable candidates. ??? Personally I consider it healthy and of benefit to have all the issues on the table for consideration when I vote, not just the positions of those with a reasonable chance at winning. That's just me I guess.
 
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.

Although I think the voting public should be thought of as intelligent enough to make informed voting decisions when given access to all the facts and choices, this might be about spoiler insurance more than anything else where a small number of votes taken away siphoned off from the front runner could help the otherwise second place finisher win. I don't know though, the demographic trends indicate Arizona is moving from red to purple and possible blue pretty fast and the GOP I'm sure needs every vote then can keep. Texas is right behind them and possible Georgia.

Do the have runoff elections in Arizona and does this also apply to the winner takes all Presidential race?
 
I agree but at the same time I understand some people run for office not to win the election but to have their voices and their constituent's concerns heard in the campaigns. Maybe a campaign for office isn't the appropriate place to air one's positions on the issues, especially minority positions and only should be about electing viable candidates. ??? Personally I consider it healthy and of benefit to have all the issues on the table for consideration when I vote, not just the positions of those with a reasonable chance at winning. That's just me I guess.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't believe something as serious and important as elections to choose competent representation is the place for people to go on vanity tours to be heard. Donald Trump comes to mind - total disgrace, took the Republican Party off message for a long time and only got involved to promote his own image and the upcoming season of his reality TV show.
 
I appreciate what you're saying, but I don't believe something as serious and important as elections to choose competent representation is the place for people to go on vanity tours to be heard. Donald Trump comes to mind - total disgrace, took the Republican Party off message for a long time and only got involved to promote his own image and the upcoming season of his reality TV show.

:lamo

But how was he able to take the Republican Party off message. That whole premise is based on the idea that voters are too stupid to make right choices and focus on the important issues so we the "shot callers" must condescendingly limit their access to candidates and issues we decide are worthy of serious consideration.

One of thing I'm think is hilarious of with respect to South African politics is the way they elect their President. South Africans beam with pride that they now have "democracy" and a popularly elected President of the country, even in cases putting down the American system that uses the Electoral College, especially in 2000 when the winner of the popular vote lost the election due to rules not easily understood by outsiders at first glance. But wait, not so fast. Yes, the President in their country is elected by popular vote but how does he get on the ballot in the first place? Party insiders hand pick him without a primary election and once any ANC party candidate is on the ballot, its a guaranteed win. Voting for President there is simply a ceremonial procedure because the ANC always wins by a landslide regardless. The President of South Africa is selected for the people by the ANC because apparently they either don't think the public is intelligent enough to decide something so important, their lust for power is so string they cannot bring themselves to allowing the public to actually pick the leader of the country or both.

I say give the people the power and the choices.

BTW: I'm completely okay with limited the participants in televised primary debated based on poll numbers but I'd like to also see at least one third party candidates general election debate where the Green and Libertarian candidates can debate each other on the cable news stations just to allow for their message to be heard too. The more speech, the more democracy, the more all sides can be heard from, the better.
 
:lamo

But how was he able to take the Republican Party off message. That whole premise is based on the idea that voters are too stupid to make right choices and focus on the important issues so we the "shot callers" must condescendingly limit their access to candidates and issues we decide are worthy of serious consideration.

In my view, the media always focusses on the circus - they're whole reason for being these days seems to be entertainment, not news - so they latch onto the idiocies, like Trump, number one because he's the best kind of idiot, one who is so clueless he doesn't know he's an idiot, and number two because anything that demeans the Republican Party or conservative principles is something the American media craves. Politics in the 21st century is driven by the media and the Republican message is at the mercy of that media - when jokes like Trump enter the scene, they of course hijack the message and never in a good way. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the voters themselves in the primary process.
 
Back
Top Bottom