Cripes...here we go again....

[PhillyKev 0]

Florida ballot dispute

[JohnRich 4]

Davey issued a temporary injunction last week preventing the state from putting Nader on the ballot, siding with a Democratic challenge that the Reform Party did not qualify as a national party under state law.

How nice of the Democrats, to celebrate Democracy, by trying to keep people off of ballots, so that the public doesn't have as many choices to vote for.

[TomAiello 26]

I don't think it's really ideological. It's just that Nader swipes more votes from democrats than republicans, so the democrats are the ones most likely to try to keep him off the ballot. Same could be said for republicans vis-a-vis the Libertarian party.

Politics as usual, I'm afraid.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Politics as usual, I'm afraid.

As usual? Oh, you must mean dirty?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Ron 10]

Quote

Davey issued a temporary injunction last week preventing the state from putting Nader on the ballot, siding with a Democratic challenge that the Reform Party did not qualify as a national party under state law.
How nice of the Democrats, to celebrate Democracy, by trying to keep people off of ballots, so that the public doesn't have as many choices to vote for.

Yep the Dems are all for something, unless it is against them....

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Jimbo 0]

Hmm... Where is Kallend? He's usually all over these Florida elections issues.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[turtlespeed 226]

Nice -

free democratic society - I was told that ANYONE could be president when I was younger, hmmm, guess not.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Nice of you to clip one little part. The election committee, which is not supposed to be partisan, was trying to violate Florida election laws to include Nader. Gee, wonder why. Guess it was altruistic just like the Republican party helping to get Nader on the ballot in other states.

Why not include the American, Prohibition, Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, Peronal Choice, Socialist, Socialist Equality, Workers World, Providential, Children's Party, United Fascist Union, Light Party and Family Values Party candidates on the ballot as well?

Give me one solid good reason that the ballots should include Nader, and not any of those candidates. Oh, by the way, even if you could, it's still not what Florida's law says. Florida law requires the candidates of minor parties to be affiliated "with a national party holding a national convention." Otherwise, they're considered independents and aren't on the ballot.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Why not include the American, Prohibition, Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, Peronal Choice, Socialist, Socialist Equality, Workers World, Providential, Children's Party, United Fascist Union, Light Party and Family Values Party candidates on the ballot as well?

As far as I'm concerned, if it is an established party, then they SHOULD be on the ballot.

What you are saying is that you CANNOT elect anyone in Florida that is not part of the two party system?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

What you are saying is that you CANNOT elect anyone in Florida that is not part of the two party system?

No, I'm saying that according to Florida law, you can write them in. And Florida law states what is considered an "established party" and that is one that nominates their candidate at a national convention. The reform party doesn't meet that criteria.

Please tell me why you think they would make this exception for Nader and none of the others?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Please tell me why you think they would make this exception for Nader and none of the others?

I think there should be NO exeptions made. There was a sort of national convention held. Is there definition of a national convention is there? Hell a phone call could round up some people from 2 different states - BINGO - national convention.

ANY meeting that brought supporters from more than one state in my opinion is a national convention.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

ANY meeting that brought supporters from more than one state in my opinion is a national convention.

Ok, then once again, why is there an exception being made for Nader and not the others? I'm sure people from more than one state must have spoken on the phone about their candidate for at least one of the other parties.

Seriously, I'd like to hear some rational, legitimate explanation for why Nader should be included, but no other independents.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

ANY meeting that brought supporters from more than one state in my opinion is a national convention.

Ok, then once again, why is there an exception being made for Nader and not the others? I'm sure people from more than one state must have spoken on the phone about their candidate for at least one of the other parties.

Seriously, I'd like to hear some rational, legitimate explanation for why Nader should be included, but no other independents.

Because florida is a fucked up state.

Rational enough?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

See, I knew you could do it

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

See, I knew you could do it

And have a nice day.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Ron 10]

Quote

Seriously, I'd like to hear some rational, legitimate explanation for why Nader should be included, but no other independents.

Let them all run.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

They are all running. But they have to use some criteria for determining who to put on the ballot. Or should Mike, from Mike's party be included and anyone else that mentions to a friend they want to run for president.

Again, the question is, why do you think the Florida election board would put Nader and none of the other independents?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Again, the question is, why do you think the Florida election board would put Nader and none of the other independents?

He has more support than anyone other independent.

Hell other than due to here I didn't know that guy, who's name I can't even remember, who is a skydiver is running...

I can even spot Nader in a police line up. I have no idea who ese is an independent that is running.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

So you think your visual recognition of him is the reason he was added to the ballot?

Why not Larouche?

[Ron 10]

Quote

So you think your visual recognition of him is the reason he was added to the ballot?

Why not Larouche?

Who?

Get my point?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

So you think your visual recognition of him is the reason he was added to the ballot?

Why not Larouche?

I was thinking that as well - his name has been bounced around a bit. Then again, maybe we should only have people ony the ballet that we can recognize their name or face. Thats an idea - a pre election to see who can get on the ballet just like in high school!!

The fact here is that the state is trying to screw with its own laws and the dems are just trying to uphold them. I wonder why Jeb hasn't come out and said something about this???

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Again, the question is, why do you think the Florida election board would put Nader and none of the other independents?

Because Florida like every other state in the US requires candidates to circulate nomination petitions to give a candidate access to the ballots. Perhaps the other parties didn't get enough signatures to get their candidates on the ballots, while Nader did.

Being from Philly (and as bright as you are) I know that you know Nader just got kicked off the Pennsylvania ballot because of challenges to his nominating petitions raised by the Democrats (who, by the way, were unashamedly public about their opposition to Nader's presence on the ballot).

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Perhaps the other parties didn't get enough signatures to get their candidates on the ballots, while Nader did.

No, actually it hadn't been decided yet. They hadn't yet ruled on whether Nader met the requirements to be on the ballot, but the Election board ordered that he be put on the absentee ballots anyway. The democrats sued to stop that. What right do they have to arbitrarily decide to put him on a certain type of ballot before his eligibility had been decided?

Quote

Being from Philly (and as bright as you are) I know that you know Nader just got kicked off the Pennsylvania ballot because of challenges to his nominating petitions raised by the Democrats (who, by the way, were unashamedly public about their opposition to Nader's presence on the ballot).

No less unashamedly public than the Republicans pushing to get him on the ballot with the intention of siphoning votes from Kerry.

Like I said in the thread title. Here we go again.

Bottom line is neither democrats nor republicans should be involved in influencing what other parties are or aren't on the ballots.

[turtlespeed 226]

Ok - and what are you going to do about it. It's wrong - on either side - change it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Ok - and what are you going to do about it. It's wrong - on either side - change it.

For 1 - Not join either of those parties or send them my money.

2 - As often as feasible vote for candidates from a different party. (Whether someone is on the ballot or not doesn't stop you from writing in.)

But this particular issue in this thread highlights a disparity which I find appalling. On one side, you have the supposedly non partisan board of elections who is supposed to oversee and stop improprieties doing something that violates their own rules, on the other side you have the democrats suing to make them abide by their own rules.

I seem to recall quite a few righties defending the Bush team suits in the Supreme Court during 2000 because he was just suing to stop the shenanigans and make them stick to the rules that were already in place. If those people weren't being partisan, actually believed that, and aren't hypocrites, than they should be on the democrats side of this issue.