• 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

First off, I'm gonna side with George Washington on this one.

His predictions as to what would happen to this country if we allowed a two party system to take root put Nostradamus to shame.

What would be the downside to your example?

How is too many choices a bad thing?

We need inclusion of at least one additional party per ballot, public financing of elections (since politicians only work for those who pay for their campaigns, it might as well be us.), and a proportional voting system instead of first past the post.

The problems Washington accurately predicted are real and significant. We ignore them at our peril.

I don't disagree with anything you've posted - my comments don't preclude what you suggest - I only indicate that I see nothing wrong with some form of verifying that a candidate is actually a viable choice and not just on the ballot as filler with ZERO chance of actually succeeding.
 
Even if I accept your argument, you conveniently left out the most important part - if any restriction on access to the ballot is arbitrary and unjust, what's to limit any individual from declaring themselves to be a "third" party and demand access to any ballot in any race? You say you want it to go back to the way it was - isn't that arbitrary? Based on party membership - if my party has one member, aren't you arbitrarily judging that not to be enough? How do you know, if my name was on the ballot as the candidate for the CanadaJohn party, I might drum up some votes even protest votes and gain some party memberships from being on the ballot?

Still.don't see the problem.

Except for the two parties currently in power.

Ink on paper is cheap.

Entries on digital systems even more so.

Let everybody play.
 
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.

And I would have said those crafting the elections COUNT on the American electorate being informed by attack ads than a true discussion of the issues. Just because you think the guy you liked should have won is no reason to besmirch the average voter, after all after 4 dismal years of BushII he was returned to office... :lol:

We have a saying in Oklahoma...if it ain't broke don't fix it. Has the garlic and banana ice cream party gotten on the AZ ballot? the current number of signatures seems to weed out the UFO Alliance Party, what is the 'problem' Jan sees with the system that she wants the signature number raised so drastically?

Does the Canadian system ruin elections? I mean if a few get 100 votes but the winner gets 5000 what is the issue? No Sir, that is not the issue. What Jan worries about is being Perot'd. An open rebellion of the Tea Party, which is well represented in AZ would split the 'conservative' vote and allow an opportunity for the dems to sweep into office, to include HER job! :shock:

She is attempting to cling to power with the aid of the mainstream GOP by changing the system that has worked quite well keeping Ben and Jerry odd ball flavor lovers off the ballot.

I predict those who will vilify her don't love garlic banana ice cream, but feel she is justanother power hungry over reaching gubmint official who needs to go dyed in the wool Tea Bagger and that won't do her well in AZ's hot political climate. :peace
 
Still.don't see the problem.

Except for the two parties currently in power.

Ink on paper is cheap.

Entries on digital systems even more so.

Let everybody play.

So you're advocating that any resident can walk into the election clerk's office, fill out a form and they're on the ballot, period? I presume they don't even have to pay a registration fee since some may not be able to afford it and if everyone can play, why should a fee restrict their access.
 
I don't disagree with anything you've posted - my comments don't preclude what you suggest - I only indicate that I see nothing wrong with some form of verifying that a candidate is actually a viable choice and not just on the ballot as filler with ZERO chance of actually succeeding.

The issue is the motivation behind these rules.

Its about avoiding spoilers, not crowding ballots.

People.consider it a.waste of time to vote for third parties because its a waste of a vote. Laws like this are designed to keep it that way.

If a party grows to the size necessary to meet the new criteria, they will raise it again.
 
And I would have said those crafting the elections COUNT on the American electorate being informed by attack ads than a true discussion of the issues. Just because you think the guy you liked should have won is no reason to besmirch the average voter, after all after 4 dismal years of BushII he was returned to office... :lol:

We have a saying in Oklahoma...if it ain't broke don't fix it. Has the garlic and banana ice cream party gotten on the AZ ballot? the current number of signatures seems to weed out the UFO Alliance Party, what is the 'problem' Jan sees with the system that she wants the signature number raised so drastically?

Does the Canadian system ruin elections? I mean if a few get 100 votes but the winner gets 5000 what is the issue? No Sir, that is not the issue. What Jan worries about is being Perot'd. An open rebellion of the Tea Party, which is well represented in AZ would split the 'conservative' vote and allow an opportunity for the dems to sweep into office, to include HER job! :shock:

She is attempting to cling to power with the aid of the mainstream GOP by changing the system that has worked quite well keeping Ben and Jerry odd ball flavor lovers off the ballot.

I predict those who will vilify her don't love garlic banana ice cream, but feel she is justanother power hungry over reaching gubmint official who needs to go dyed in the wool Tea Bagger and that won't do her well in AZ's hot political climate. :peace

Your premise is nonsense, if you really think about it - if a Tea Party candidate as you propose is sufficiently backed to vote a Republican candidate out of office and swing the vote to the Democrat, don't you think that Tea Party and its candidate can scrounge together 5,300 signatures to get on the ballot?
 
And I would have said those crafting the elections COUNT on the American electorate being informed by attack ads than a true discussion of the issues. Just because you think the guy you liked should have won is no reason to besmirch the average voter, after all after 4 dismal years of BushII he was returned to office... :lol:

We have a saying in Oklahoma...if it ain't broke don't fix it. Has the garlic and banana ice cream party gotten on the AZ ballot? the current number of signatures seems to weed out the UFO Alliance Party, what is the 'problem' Jan sees with the system that she wants the signature number raised so drastically?

Does the Canadian system ruin elections? I mean if a few get 100 votes but the winner gets 5000 what is the issue? No Sir, that is not the issue. What Jan worries about is being Perot'd. An open rebellion of the Tea Party, which is well represented in AZ would split the 'conservative' vote and allow an opportunity for the dems to sweep into office, to include HER job! :shock:

She is attempting to cling to power with the aid of the mainstream GOP by changing the system that has worked quite well keeping Ben and Jerry odd ball flavor lovers off the ballot.

I predict those who will vilify her don't love garlic banana ice cream, but feel she is justanother power hungry over reaching gubmint official who needs to go dyed in the wool Tea Bagger and that won't do her well in AZ's hot political climate. :peace

So why is the exact same system okay in democratic leaning Massachusetts but not in Arizona?
 
So you think requiring a party to be supported by one sixth of one percent - 5,300 voters, out of a population of 6.5 million people - is too onerous a test to get on a statewide ballot?

Here's the thing, it actually lowers the total number that the Republicans would require and raises the number that other parties will require by a ****-ton. From what I can tell, the republicans have over 1.120 million registered voters in their party in Arizona http://www.azcentral.com/news/polit...izona-number-registered-voters-increases.html

That translates to needing about 5600 signatures to get on the ballot using the old system of 1/2 of 1%. Pretty goddamned easy when you've got over a million party members. Like Walmart paying the flat tax of $1 million. But the new 5300 is even easier.

So the law doesn't have any negative affect on the Republicans. It's actually numerically beneficial. And it is immensely negative for libertarians, who have to get a much larger percentage of their total registered voters to sign in order to get on the ballot. That's why it's an artificial limitation of competition. It benefits the duopoly, and significantly inhibits any free-market competition for the duopoly.
 
So you're advocating that any resident can walk into the election clerk's office, fill out a form and they're on the ballot, period? I presume they don't even have to pay a registration fee since some may not be able to afford it and if everyone can play, why should a fee restrict their access.

Again, I'll.side with Washington on this.

The two party system is a total mess.

So its time to open it up more, not constrict it further.

Third parties weren't competitive BEFORE the new rules, so an ulterior motive is probably behind this move.
 
So why is the exact same system okay in democratic leaning Massachusetts but not in Arizona?

It isn't.

Its perfectly ok to be against a NEW reinforcement of the two party system.

Put me down as against all of them.
 
Here's the thing, it actually lowers the total number that the Republicans would require and raises the number that other parties will require by a ****-ton. From what I can tell, the republicans have over 1.120 million registered voters in their party in Arizona http://www.azcentral.com/news/polit...izona-number-registered-voters-increases.html

That translates to needing about 5600 signatures to get on the ballot using the old system of 1/2 of 1%. Pretty goddamned easy when you've got over a million party members. Like Walmart paying the flat tax of $1 million. But the new 5300 is even easier.

So the law doesn't have any negative affect on the Republicans. It's actually numerically beneficial. And it is immensely negative for libertarians, who have to get a much larger percentage of their total registered voters to sign in order to get on the ballot. That's why it's an artificial limitation of competition. It benefits the duopoly, and significantly inhibits any free-market competition for the duopoly.

That's your view, and clearly you're entitled to it - in my view, it brings integrity and equality of access to the ballot process. If you want to run for statewide office in Arizona, you damn well should be able to muster up 5,300 signatures out of a population in excess of 6.5 million in order to get your candidate's name on the ballot. If you can't do that, your candidacy is a joke.
 
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?
 
That's your view, and clearly you're entitled to it - in my view, it brings integrity and equality of access to the ballot process. If you want to run for statewide office in Arizona, you damn well should be able to muster up 5,300 signatures out of a population in excess of 6.5 million in order to get your candidate's name on the ballot. If you can't do that, your candidacy is a joke.

How does it bring integrity and equality to create and maintain a duopoly?
 
I theory, I understand the repugnation of denying an individual the right to run for political office.

But sooner or later, reality has to step in. In today's society, it would suprise me none to see 1000 candidates run down to city hall to get their name on the ballot if their news channel of choice told them to.

There has to be some guidelines that are practical.
 
Are you saying people who vote for third-party candidates aren't voters?

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
 
How does it bring integrity and equality to create and maintain a duopoly?

It does no such thing - if there is sufficient "demand", to use your term, that demand will generate 5,300 signatures to get on a statewide ballot, period. When people wanted to get gay marriage on the ballot in various states, as an example, they had no trouble rounding up millions of signatures to do so. When people in California wanted to recall Governor Davis, they had no trouble rounding up the required number of signatures to do so. If the demand is there, getting the signatures is a piece of cake.

I don't suggest it's easy to create a credible, viable, third party capable of electing candidates - that's a lot different from just rounding up 5,300 signatures - maybe that tells you that the people who are actually interested and concerned about politics and government are being served adequately and to their satisfaction by the "duopoly".
 
It does no such thing - if there is sufficient "demand", to use your term, that demand will generate 5,300 signatures to get on a statewide ballot, period.

Demand must grow. It deosn't start at equal to that of the established party.
 
Demand must grow. It deosn't start at equal to that of the established party.

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.
 
Let me use a beer analogy. Let's say Miller and Budweiser managed to get a law passed that required 500,000 signatures (in a country with a population of 300 million+) in order for a brewing company to get a license to brew their beer.

It would be easy as hell for Miller and Budweiser to achieve this goal. There are more than 500,000 people who drink that piss-water. But a company like Dogfish Head? Pretty much ****ed.
 
I don't disagree with anything you've posted - my comments don't preclude what you suggest - I only indicate that I see nothing wrong with some form of verifying that a candidate is actually a viable choice and not just on the ballot as filler with ZERO chance of actually succeeding.

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Since we have all been told that anyone can grow up to be President, why not let anyone that feels like running on any platform that has followers do so? As it stands, it takes lots of money to run for an office, which does eliminate what might be good leaders. No wonder our government is out of touch with the voters! Have we indeed become Rome, where money creates dynasties that continue to run things? Does money equal good sense?

On the other hand, why would an honest person ever get into politics? With a few exceptions, they usually don't, because they are too smart to do so!

"If you want to know what the universe thinks about money, just look at who it gives money to." unknown
 
Demand must grow. It deosn't start at equal to that of the established party.

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.
 
Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Since we have all been told that anyone can grow up to be President, why not let anyone that feels like running on any platform that has followers do so? As it stands, it takes lots of money to run for an office, which does eliminate what might be good leaders. No wonder our government is out of touch with the voters! Have we indeed become Rome, where money creates dynasties that continue to run things? Does money equal good sense?

On the other hand, why would an honest person ever get into politics? With a few exceptions, they usually don't, because they are too smart to do so!

"If you want to know what the universe thinks about money, just look at who it gives money to." unknown

Good morning Lady P - all's well I hope - as for the topic, living in the Canadian system with often far too many meaningless choices, I see no problem with Arizona's new requirements, particularly since they are no more onerous than most other states.
 
Back
Top Bottom