Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government

Third-Party and Independent Ballot Status 221

Posted by michael from the you-have-a-choice dept.
jsrjsr writes "Ballot Access News reports on the number of states where various candidates will be on the ballot. The site also contains a wealth of news about ballot access and other election-related issues."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Third-Party and Independent Ballot Status More

Third-Party and Independent Ballot Status

Comments Filter:

  • Obligatory Simpsons quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:11AM (#10220150)
    Kang: "It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us."

    Person in crowd: "I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!"

    Kodos: "Go ahead - throw your vote away!"

    (Pan to Ross Perot in crowd punching though his hat)

    ***************

    Kodos: "All hail President Kang!"

    Marge: "I can't believe we have to build a ray gun to aim at a planet I never even heard of."

    Homer: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."
    • As is often the case, the Simpson's actually managed to slip some insiteful social commentary into their humor. Personally, I feel humor plays an important role in the public debate, whether it be political cartoons, the Daily Show, or whatever...

  • The system is built for two... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:19AM (#10220171)
    There is absolutely no way somebody other than Bush or Kerry is going to win in November... the American presidential election system just doesn't play that way.

    Every state, plus Washington D.C., holds its own election that determines which set of electors will be sent to the electoral college. Almost all are in a winner-take-all format where the candidate with the most actual votes takes all of the state's electoral votes.

    If a third party candidate is able to somehow upset both Bush and Kerry and take a state or two, they'd possibly pull things so that nobody gets a majority of the electoral votes. Realistically, a third candidate of the strength of the other two would result in an even 3-way split, which would most certainly promise that nobody can capture a majority. If that happens... the whole system turns on it head.

    The electoral votes are tossed aside, and the newly elected House of Representatives gets to vote in a one-vote-per-state fashion to pick the new president.

    In short, a third party candidate has no way to win the direct election, and can only hope to kick the election into the House's hands. However, if that third party doesn't have any representation in the House, they're going to crash there. In short, you can't start a new party at the presidency... you have to start building it with smaller offices before you can approach the Oval Office.

    • Re:The system is built for two... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scoria ( 264473 ) <`slashmail' `at' `initialized.org'> on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:31AM (#10220199) Homepage
      the American presidential election system just doesn't play that way.

      Neither does our corporate media. How much coverage of the "other, less popular" candidates do you see on FOX? If they can successfully perpetuate the belief that only two candidates are viable, then only two candidates will be viable, primarily because many voters incorrectly consider network media to be authoritative and objective. Considering that it is much easier to "influence" two parties as opposed to a much larger number, it is probably in their collective best interest.

      • that's what I have seen.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zogger ( 617870 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @09:51AM (#10220413) Homepage Journal
        ..watching politics for a long time. The media coverage is vital. Whenever third parties and candidates get even close to normal coverage they do quite well. If they got equal coverage I'd bet we'd have huge numbers of third parties in every aspect of government at every level, but they CAN'T get coverage. This lasts a few cycles then a third party guy gets coverage, gets millions of votes. Lather, rinse, repeat. Now I think they realise they should never cover third parties except for negative spin stories, well, like you see here.

        The real biggee I remember was the national debates, you get some guy on there, and you can see third parties are viable. I'd blame the media and it's obvious brainwashing and propoganda efforts more than any other reason for the dominance of the R and D criminal cartel. And calling it a criminal cartel is the truth-they are. At the top, the mass media is owned by a handful of billionaires, so you will only see media reports that perpetuate their own corporate blow dried alleged "candidates". And since the rise of independent press and the internet, they realise their monopoly on info was threatened, so they had to come up with some way to insure the corporate party candidate gets in always, hence blackbox voting.

        People in the USA need to wake up that they live in a dictatorship, that their vote itself comes pre-wasted for them. The only wasted vote are all the ones cast thinking that it will make a difference, because it won't, the corporate party "won" a long time ago and now runs bi annual political melodrama TV fiction shows to keep people amused and faked out.

        I mean, c'mon, two skull and bones white male connected elite globalist millionaires as the "choices"? How blatant does it have to get?

        • Re:that's what I have seen.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @12:05PM (#10220972) Homepage Journal
          I mean, c'mon, two skull and bones white male connected elite globalist millionaires as the "choices"? How blatant does it have to get?

          Indeed. And where does the difference of opinion lie? They bluster and they talk on "major points of difference" but what are they exactly?

          Let's start with the major ones.

          The Republicans are the party of small government and responsible fiscal policy. Really? The current Republican president has grown the government by 7.5% and created the largest budget deficit in history. That's just Bush? Interestingly it was the last Republican presidencies, under Bush Snr. and Reagan that were responsible for the previous record for a budget deficit. Don't tell me the federal government didn't balloon overr that era too (I unfortnately do not have figures for that).

          The Democrats are the party of progressive social policy. That would be why John Kerry doesn't actually support gay marriage then? That would be the Democrats are as supportive of the War on Drugs in its various forms as the Republicans. They are good at scaremongering over social policy - in 2000 we were warned that a vote for Bush would see legal abortions repealed. Bush has had 4 years, and the Republicans have been exceptionally dominant during much of it - is abortion illegal? No.

          And for those Republicans who want the more conservative social policy - has Bush actually done anything about abortion? No, not really. For all his bluster about constituitonal amendments, has Bush actually done anything about gay marriage? No, he supported the single action that was the least likely to succeed, and have any real effect. It was all rhetoric - all for show.

          Okay, so on the major issues, where the parties claim they are different, they turn out to be very similar in practice. Then surely there are plenty of differences on minor issues? Sure, if you dig around you can find plenty of reasons why the Democrats and Republicans differ. If you look at most of the broad issues that matter however, you'll find they agree. They argue so vehemently over the trivialities, they polarise their supporters into an "Us v. Them" mentality so well, that people have come to believe these are the only issues that matter - that they aren't as trivial as they appear.

          Take some time out. Watch a debate [c-span.org] between a couple of the major third parties and see all the other important issues that come up - issues that are usually not even discussed by Republicans or Democrats, but when you hear them, truly are worthy of at least having a discussion about. Whether you agree with these candidates or not, they have views that are certainly worthy of being heard and discussed.

          Jedidiah.

          • You forgot the other difference. Bush says the US is in Iraq forever, and Kerry says that maybe they'll pull out in 4 years...as long as you elect him for his second term, they are as good as gone.

            No, the major issue is that some vets paid by Bush say Kerry didn't earn all his medals. And some other people say Bush lost his wings for refusing a drug test, and then deserted his unit in wartime. So really, the entire election is about the Vietnam war.

            You're right about the "Big Government Liberals"

      • I really doubt if you do, but let's evaluate the validity of your claim that FOX news doesn't cover the other, less popular candidates.

        Google search for nader on fox news: [google.com] 292 Results

        Google search for bush on fox news: [google.com] 15000 Results.

        Fox's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.0915

        Google search for nader on cnn: [google.com] 2,290 Results

        Google search for bush on cnn: [google.com] 211,000 Results.

        Cnn's Nader/Bush Ratio : 0.0517

        Google search for nader on msn: [google.com] 4,660 Results

        Google search for bush on msn: [google.com] 126,000 Results.

      • Neither does our corporate media. How much coverage of the "other, less popular" candidates do you see on FOX?
        To answer your question, Ralph Nader's campaign has been covered on Fox on a daily basis. In fact, he appeared personally on O'Reilly Factor just a few days ago.

    • Go Whigs! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:35AM (#10220208) Homepage
      Don't throw away your vote by voting Republican!
      • Support Nebraska's right to susceed from the union, vote Nebraska Seperatist Party... and don't give me that mumbo-jumbo about Nebraska being land locked. :)

      • Re:Go Whigs! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Xoro ( 201854 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @01:37PM (#10221464)

        Go Whigs!
        Don't throw away your vote by voting Republican!

        Note to moderators -- the above comment is not a troll but a way of wryly pointing out that in the past, the system *has* in fact changed, and the entrenched parties of the time would likely have used the same "don't throw your vote away" argument against the rising power that we hear from the entrenched parties of today.

        Now as for what this mismoderation says about the Republicans who were offended by the comment, I'll leave that to the real trolls...

    • Re:The system is built for two... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:38AM (#10220214) Homepage Journal
      If you count the parties and the current political climate in with "system", then you're right, but the actual election system itself does not have an inherent two-party limitation. This is proven by the fact that there have been elections with more than two candidates who got electoral votes. Probably most famously, this happened in 1860 with a four-way contest that was far from a foregone conclusion, but it has happened in other elections as well. It hasn't happened recently, not because the system prevents it, but because of the current political parties; only two are really viable, and they are cohesive enough to prevent any great factions from splitting on the question of which candidate to put forth.

      • Re:The system is built for two... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:44AM (#10220228)
        The election of 1860 was an election had four candidates get electoral votes, but Lincoln was able to capture a majority by winning every one of the non-slave states.

        Between the election and his swearing in seven of the states that didn't vote for him decided they wanted to rebel... and that's the path that led to something known as the Civil War.
        • >>Lincoln was able to capture a majority by winning every one of the non-slave states

          New Jersey went to Steven Douglas the Democrat that year. In fact, it was the only state Douglas won. Lincoln also lost Maryland and Delaware to John Breckenridge, a southern (i.e. Traitor) Democrat.
      • >>Probably most famously, this happened in 1860 with a four-way contest...

        Another good example is 1912, where Teddy Roosevelt, pissed off at his former heir apparant Taft, ran against him and Woodrow Wilson on the Progressive (a.k.a. "Bull Moose") party.

        TR actually outpolled Taft by a fair margin, about 4.1 million to 3.5 million, and 88 to 8 in the electoral college with 435 going to Wilson. On a state level TR threw enough state elections to Wilson to make the make the electoral college a wipe, ev
    • In short, you can't start a new party at the presidency... you have to start building it with smaller offices before you can approach the Oval Office.

      Agreed. And, I think the political system functions much more smoothly with only two parties. However, this results in a lot of voices not being heard. So, is a relatively smoothly operating but less democratic government a better thing?

      It is an interesting conundrum in democracy that a moderate amount works well but too much does not seem to work well. Ju

      • Re:The system is built for two... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by flossie ( 135232 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:56AM (#10220258) Homepage
        Just look at the useless (seeming inactive) coalition governments around the world and their regular crises.

        There are people who think it is better for governments to be in a perpetual state of crisis. How many new laws do we really need? Good laws should be able to get a cross-party consensus. Why should the government be able to rely on an inate majority to push bad legislation through?

      • There are plenty of parliamentary systems that work very smoothly without coalition governments: Canada (which recently obtained its first minority government in 27 years and they have 4 parties that actually get elected, and the Green Party is growing exponentially every election), the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

        The systems are more streamlined in the sense that the party that gets elected will carry through it's agenda and not get stalled/sideswiped by others. In the US, you have 3 things you are

        • The systems are more streamlined in the sense that the party that gets elected will carry through it's agenda and not get stalled/sideswiped by others.

          That is what scares me about parliamentary systems like the UK, where there has been a long-running battle to marginalize the House of Lords. What prevents the PM, assuming his party has a simple majority in the House of Commons, from acting like the supreme leader, enacting any law he pleases? What are the checks on his power? Politics and efficiency are

          • Does everything need a check? The electorate can do that every 4-5 years, and it was the electorate that elected the party in the first place. Canada's senate is essentially useless, and though the Liberals there have controled parlaiment for most of the past 40 years, there have been periods of other party rule (particularily the 80s, which produced the largest majority in history--to the conservatives) that have created a relativly safe balance. The only danger is the complacency of the electorate.
        • There are plenty of parliamentary systems that work very smoothly without coalition governments: Canada (which recently obtained its first minority government in 27 years and they have 4 parties that actually get elected, and the Green Party is growing exponentially every election), the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

          The UK parliamentary system may work "smoothly" but it is entirely useless.

          With our first-past-the-post system, one party usually ends up with a massive majority in parliament. The leader

          • We are in dire need of a directly elected president and an elected chamber of people with no expectation of being appointed to cabinet.

            The concept of a president, IMHO, is not a good one. If you look at most countries, it is a polarizing experience. Proportional representation would be a better solution for Britain, which a large movement in canada hoping for (which is almost a carbon copy of the UK system, with the senate being less uselful than the house of lords).

            • The concept of a president, IMHO, is not a good one ... Proportional representation would be a better solution for Britain

              Having proportional representation and an elected president are not mutually exlusive. PR is necessary if we are to ever restore confidence in the political process, but it is not sufficient. PR can solve the problem of having an unrepresentative government, but it will not necessarily help in holding the government to account.

              There is no reason to believe that MPs would be any better

        • It's checks and balances, it makes it much harder (in theory at least if not in practice). The other reason we don't have 'universal' health care is because there are significant drawbacks, when you take away the incentive for innovation and competition you lose quality and advancement in tech, not all of it, just allot. Currently the us medical system is one of the most capable in the world and the reason it isn't on of the least expensive is that the insurance companies lose so much gambling on the stock
      • Just look at the useless (seeming inactive) coalition governments around the world and their regular crises.

        I'll take a gridlocked government over an effective government any day.

        It is probably a product of my American upbringing, but I believe that the worst possible threat to a population's freedom and safety is an overbearing government.

        Ultimately, any organization's primary goal is to increase the size and power of the organization. A gridlocked government will be just as ineffective at growing its
      • Political reporting may run more smoothly, but as far as the stability of a country's political climate, a two party system is much more susceptible to
        violent
        swinging
        right
        and
        left
        as the country switches between one party having the most seats (and winning any vote that goes along partisan lines) and then the other party having the most seats and trying to get all their digs in before they lose the majority again.
    • A third-party candidate does not have to win to be a strong influence. Don't you see how both the Democrats and Republicans try to play to the middle and focus so strongly on the "swing-voters."

      If a third party was able to capture say 15% of the popular vote it would send a message to the other parties that maybe they need to modify their actions to appeal to those voters if they plan to keep their job next go around.

      This is why voting your conscience is never throwing a vote away.
      • If a third party was able to capture say 15% of the popular vote it would send a message to the other parties that maybe they need to modify their actions to appeal to those voters if they plan to keep their job next go around.

        This is exactly what happened in the 1992 election. Perot got enough votes to wake up the major political parties, and they finally got serious about balancing the budget (for a little while).

        The subsequent Republican majority in the US House of Representative after the 1994 ele

    • If a third party candidate is able to somehow upset both Bush and Kerry and take a state or two, they'd possibly pull things so that nobody gets a majority of the electoral votes. Realistically, a third candidate of the strength of the other two would result in an even 3-way split, which would most certainly promise that nobody can capture a majority. If that happens... the whole system turns on it head.

      Good. The system sucks. It's not working as designed. Republicans and Democrats have worked hard t

      • Re:The system is built for two... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sircus ( 16869 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @10:46AM (#10220580) Homepage
        It bites having to choose between dumb and dumber, but you're not going to get away without any new legislation for 4 years. Lots of legislation is passed for a given time period (the budget, annual), or is passed with sunset clauses (see the furore about the assault weapons ban which is expiring). This stuff needs new legislation to follow it - otherwise, you get the federal government grinding to a halt. Better to have a muppet at the helm than suddenly losing all the functions (the useful ones as well as the useless ones) of the federal government.

        My personal favoured modification would be: you can't be re-elected. You can be elected once each as a school inspector, state senator, congressman, senator, president, whatever - but only once.

        Result: New candidates every 4/6 years, with new ideas and not working to stay in power, because it's legally not allowed. People who just want to do their bit for 4 years.

        Granted, they'd have less experience, wouldn't know the ins and outs, but a lot of issues don't need a deep understanding and for other stuff, there's lobbyists, letters from your constituents, and so forth. Overall, I think the disadvantages easily outweigh the advantages.

        Of course, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening, since to happen, the current lot would have to introduce and then approve it - thereby effectively sacking themselves.
        • My personal favoured modification would be: you can't be re-elected. You can be elected once each as a school inspector, state senator, congressman, senator, president, whatever - but only once.


          The biggest problem with this is that then the power begins to rest in the unelected officials; party members, aides, etc.

          They begin to "advise" these new politicians. Term limits are only good if you don't like the people being elected.
          • I don't think the system's ever been tried - my anticipation would be that doing this would tend to get rid of traditional party structures, since there'd no longer be the ongoing power that the parties yearn for. I could be wrong - I still think it would be interesting to see how such a system worked out. It's unfortunate we won't get to (and unfortunate that there's no way to test it out without actually implementing it).

            • Re:The system is built for two... (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Bombcar ( 16057 ) <racbmob@bo[ ]ar.com ['mbc' in gap]> on Saturday September 11, 2004 @11:35AM (#10220790) Homepage Journal
              We're darn close with term limits of two terms on President and many other officials (the Governator?).

              And the parties continue to thrive. Remember - most people don't think a damn about politics; they vote for the candidate from the party they support.

              So if there were term limits, party affiliation would become even more important. For example; you know things about Bush because he is POTUS. We know things about Kerry because he's a Senator.

              But if term limits are one term, then the endorsement of the party will become the defining factor. As it is currently, you can find people who are elected time and time again to their position but actually begin to change what they think about things, and their constituents continue to vote for them because they trust them.

              Also, politicians who have a chance of being reelected will keep an eye on the will of the people; single term limits would turn every single term into a lame duck term. Assuming you're anti-Bush, do you think he would have acted differently if he knew there was no way for him to be re-elected? Perhaps not, if he valued his party.

              Then again, remember that I think one of the worst things that happened to the US was direct election of Senators. We should do our best to keep a Republic to prevent tyranny of the majority.

              My personal take on it: the House of Representatives should be doubled or more. That way there is a much larger chance that third or fourth party candidates can get in. That's where the revolution will start.

              However, if the Democrats manage to seize defeat from the jaws of victory in this election (they have everything you could ask for in an opponent: hated, deficit, etc, and are neck and neck.) , then you may be seeing the beginning of the death of the Democratic party as it is currently known. The Federalist party died in a similar manner (if I remember correctly). And many have commented that the Republicans are moving left in some things: who enacted Medicare prescription benefits: Bush or Clinton?

              Now as to other commentary: A vote for a third party candidate can only be considered throwing away your vote if you're voting against a candidate. For example, a vote for Nader can only be considered throwing away your vote if you are voting against Bush.

              And voting for a third party candidate is much better than not voting at all: the third party vote announces to the world that there are issues that are important to you that the main candidates do not discuss. Not voting announces to the world that you are watching American Idol or something else. Any number of things can cause someone not to vote, but definite agreement with the candidate causes someone to vote third party.

              Wow! Long post. :)
        • My personal favoured modification would be: you can't be re-elected. You can be elected once each as a school inspector, state senator, congressman, senator, president, whatever - but only once.

          I think a dilution of power is necessary. What if there were 4000 people in Congress? No one of them would have much power. Campaign contributions wouldn't get you as far.

          A well established third party would work well also because it would significantly reduce the likelihood that a single party holds a major
    • With the current voting system we are effectively stuck with two parties. Someone else mentioned runoff voting. However, much better than simple runoff voting is a related method called Condorcet voting: electionmethods.org [electionmethods.org]. This link should be read by everyone and I think it is what we need to bring into law. Urgently.

  • Politics.Slashdot?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stevemm81 ( 203868 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:20AM (#10220173) Homepage
    Isn't this what the new Slashdot politics subsite is for? I don't see how this any specific technological issues(e.g, Diebold) that justifies inclusion on the main page.
    • You must be new here. All subsite stories always show up on the main page by default. If you wish hide such stories, you can configure the site to do that for you in the preferences section.
      • If you wish hide such stories, you can configure the site to do that for you in the preferences section.


        It doesn't work, which people have commented on in previous threads.
    • I agree. I posted a similar response to another politics message. I understand many people want to talk about Politics, but personally, if I want to talk about politics, I will go to another politics-related board. This is (IMHO), is something that should be stuffed into the politics page where only those people

      I don't think all politics should be banned from the main page, just these template of stories:

      1. Voting machines and other political tools being updated to the electronic age
      2. $CANDIDA

    • Re:Politics.Slashdot?? (Score:3, Informative)

      by numark ( 577503 )
      So why not block any stories labeled as "Politics" from your home page? That's what that feature is there for. Some of us like a more well-balanced homepage, and the default is the most inclusive. From there you can edit the page down until you get your own individual view.

  • Democrats oppressing Ralph Nader (Score:5, Informative)

    by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:24AM (#10220180)
    The Democrats have been harrasing Ralph Nader pretty bad. What they've done is they've formed a separate group called the United Progressives for Victory, and they are suing him everywhere that they can [iht.com]. They sue him in battleground states in order to keep him off the ballot, and they'll sue him in non-battleground states simply to harass him and deplete his resources. By forming a separate group, the United Progressives for Victory can be counter-attacked and sued out of exisxtence without putting the Democratic Party, itself, on the line.

    • Re:Democrats oppressing Ralph Nader (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:36AM (#10220210)
      This brings up a very interesting point in the current American system... not all "democrats" agree with what the "Democratic Party" is doing, and likewise there are "republicans" who don't agree with the "Republican Party".

      In fact, so called "529 groups" cannot speak to the main parties at all. They get their numerical name from the section that creates the loophole in the McCain-Finegold Campaign Finance Reform law that allows them to exist. The reform law was meant to end soft money, but really, it just sends the soft money to groups like "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" that exist to create attack ads that the main candidate and main party have no control over and therefore can deny association with.

      Yes, democrats are trying to knock Nader off the ballot out of fear that his being there will distract votes from Kerry. However, it's also true that republicans are supporting Nader because they're hoping that Nader will distract votes from Kerry in close states letting Bush win those states.

      The so called "media recount" of the 2000 Florida election actually discovered that there was a counting method that would have declared Gore the winner, however it wasn't the one that Gore had called for, and Gore still would have lost had Kathrine Harris not opened her office for a few minutes on a Saturday to certify the result forcing the incomplete counters to stop short. Yep, little things like the "butterfly ballot" actually mattered that time... it was so close the margin of error in our system showed up to cast uncertainty over the outcome..
      • One thing to consider is that both sides have done this fighting to keep off/put on a third party on the ballot. The Democrats helped Perot get on many ballots to divert votes away from Bush Sr. Now they complain when Republicans try to put Nader on the ballot to help Bush Jr.

        In short, this is politics as usual.
        • I would also argue that Republicans supporting Nader is not an ethical problem. A peculiarity, yes. But it's the electorate who pulls the lever, not the Republican party. Every voter makes their own decision.

          Suppressing a candidate from appearing on a ballot is a far, far more serious charge than informing the public about an opposition candidate.
          • I'm not so sure. It's clearly legal, but if the Democrats started bending over backwards to get Jerry Falwell or other candidates who are, for lack of an easier label, "Radical Christian Fundamentalists", it would surely detract more from Bush's voting foundation than the Democrats.

            It might be legal, but I have hard time believe that it's ethical.

            • Frankly, any effort to get a few national opinion leaders on the ballot is just fine by my book, no matter what the motives.

              Now, an effort to put 800,000 random names from the phone book on the ballot is just disruptive to the election process. However, if the democrats want to nominate Rush Limbaugh for president I'm fine with that - since he is actually a candidate that quite a few people would potentially want to vote for. Same goes for the head of NOW, or whoever else.

              This will force anybody who wan
      • First of all, this painting with a broad brush does not help, saying, "Yes well, the other side does it too." There's some specific dirty tricks here that need to be addressed, and there is a specific party that is guilty.

        Secondly, I believe that the people that the Deomcrats have chosen as their leadership are wholly dishonest. Case in point is the scandal going on right now with the forged documents that CBS produced on 60 Minutes. Without a shred of evidence, Terry McCauliff immediately hits the cable n

        • Ha (Score:2)

          by bogie ( 31020 )
          Wow you have the nerve to attack the Dems but then mention Karl Rove as being some sort of victim? I have more respect for Sadam.

          "Secondly, I believe that the people that the Deomcrats have chosen as their leadership are wholly dishonest"

          Right back at ya chief. I've never seen a bigger bunch of unethical immoral human being then what I'm seeing with GW and Halliburton, I mean DICK. The world is a MUCH worse place because of them.

          "I love folks like Pat Cadell. He's not a "win at any cost" Democrat. It's t

  • Without runoff elections, 3rd parties won't work (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Not for Presidential elections, anyway. The last race was close and the upcoming one won't be a cakewalk for either side. People vote with their hearts, not their consciences.

  • A Real Choice This Year (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Izaak ( 31329 )
    I usually vote third party as a way of registering my dissapointment with the two main parties, but not this year. The Bush administration has run far enough to the right that there really is a difference between the two parties again. I recommend everyone do some web searching, learn the issues and the track records of the candidates, and then VOTE!

    On my political humor web site, AliensForBush.com, I've included some google.com search terms that might be useful to get you started.

    Remeber, you don't ha

    • Remeber, you don't have a right to complain if you don't participate in the democratic process. :P

      No? [lewrockwell.com]

      I still plan to vote in this, and almost certainly third party -- but I've really enjoyed reading LewRockwell.com [lewrockwell.com]'s articles on not voting and the reasons why.

      I too wish to see the day when there is a turn out of, say, 10 or 15% of eligible voters. Let the politicians claim they have a mandate then:)

    • Remeber, you don't have a right to complain if you don't participate in the democratic process.

      He's right, you know. It says so right in the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech ... [or] to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (unless one does not vote, in which case one has no right to complain)."
      • He's right, you know. It says so right in the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech ... [or] to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (unless one does not vote, in which case one has no right to complain)."

        Actually, I did say 'participate in the democratic process' not just 'vote'... and I would include 'petition the Government for a redress of grievances' as participation. I do get your point though. My comment was ment to be satirical even if somew

    • Remeber, you don't have a right to complain if you don't participate in the democratic process. :P

      Voting shows support of the system itself. An anarchist, for example, should not vote because this goes against his mission to abolish the heirarchal social structure itself.

      I don't support the government itself therefore I have a right to complain even if I don't vote.

  • Hypocrisy of the parties... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JimBobJoe ( 2758 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:49AM (#10220237)
    In an email conversation with Richard Winger (who runs Ballot Access News and invests all his energy and resources into the effort of being the central repository of a very complex subject) he noted the inherent hypocrisy of the parties.

    The Republican party was very hastily assembled and won a big election (1860) in very short order (just a few months of organization on the national level.) Under todays hugely complex ballot laws, that would have been simply impossible. (Ballot access laws came about with the secret ballot. Prior to the secret ballot, the state didn't print ballots at all, and candidates did not register themselves with the state for an election. They just started campaigning, and people wrote the candidate's names down, or they brought candidate lists with them to the polling place and dropped them into the box. Essentially, *everyone* was a write-in candidate. The secret ballot made pre-printing necessary and therefore candidate pre-registration, and now we have a very technical system for keeping undesireables off the ballot.)

    Winger does imply that there may be a federal ballot access system setup in the future, but I don't know how far off that is, nor how fair it would be for third parties.

  • Influencing Policy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Izaak ( 31329 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:50AM (#10220243) Homepage Journal
    The best reason to vote third party is to influence the policies of the two major parties. If the dems or reps see enough voters get behind a major third party issue, they will adjust their platforms to try and capture those votes.

    Of course it is up to us to be an informed electorate and hold our leaders' feet to the fire when they fall down on their campaign promises. I am actually going to vote democrat for the first time in many years for exactly that reason... Bush's record is really rather horrible when bother to look past the spin and really check the facts.

  • Ballot access laws seem arbitrary enforced (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scotay ( 195240 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @08:56AM (#10220260)
    I love how these so-called non-partisan laws are used to challenge 3-parties while the majors get their way. In Illinois these laws state qualifying names must be submitted by August 30. The Republican convention was held in Sept. If these laws were equally applied to the Majors, Dubya would not be on the ballot. I'm glad my Libertarians are on the ballot. They do a pretty good job at getting on all ballots. I don't delude myself that they will win because of it, but I hate when these laws only appear to apply to everyone but democrats and republicans.

    • Re:Ballot access laws seem arbitrary enforced (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @11:39AM (#10220808) Journal
      I love how these so-called non-partisan laws are used to challenge 3-parties while the majors get their way. In Illinois these laws state qualifying names must be submitted by August 30. The Republican convention was held in Sept. If these laws were equally applied to the Majors, Dubya would not be on the ballot.

      An even more disgusting example was in 2002, where Sen. Robert Toricelli, in the middle of a large scandal, decided--after his name was placed on the ballot--that he was going to drop out of the race. The democrats decided to change the name on the ballot (because no one wanted to vote for Toricelli) in violation of NJ state election law.

      The NJ Supreme Court let them get away with it, on the basis that "the people have a right to have viable candidates from both parties on the ballot."

      The phrase "both parties" is quite telling, don't you think?

  • electoral-vote.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by nucal ( 561664 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @09:07AM (#10220285)
    This site [electoral-vote.com] is updated daily to give the predicted electoral vote counts - more informative than the overall popular vote totals. He also covers the Senate races and issues related to polling ingeneral. The site does have a somewhat pro-Kerry viewpoint, but it seems like the poll data is non-partisan ...

  • Why I vote third-party... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by singularity ( 2031 ) * <nowalmart.gmail@com> on Saturday September 11, 2004 @09:20AM (#10220319) Homepage Journal
    I frequently get asked why I "throw away" my vote by voting for a third-party candidate for President.

    Sometimes people are nice about it, but too often it is an accusation. Apparently *I* am responsible for the fact that Al Gore did not get elected in 2000.

    I have written on this subject before, but I wanted to cover some other information today.

    One reason I vote for third party candidates is that they bring to the table issues that the major candidates may not normally mention. In order to try to sway third-party candidates, the major candidates will co-op some of the platform of smaller candidates. Had Al Gore paid more attention to *why* people were voting for Nader, he might have pulled in some more votes. Had he pulled in about 600 more votes in Florida, what would have happened?

    From Open Debates [opendebates.org]: "Third-party candidates have introduced popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually co-opted by the major parties, such as: the abolition of slavery, unemployment insurance, social security, child labor laws, public schools, public power, the direct election of senators, the graduated income tax, paid vacation, the 40-hour work week, the formation of labor unions, and democratic tools like the initiative, the referendum and the recall."

    In related news - "The Commission on Presidential Debates may have violated federal election laws when it refused to allow any third-party presidential candidates into the debate halls to watch the 2000 presidential debates, a federal judge has ruled." [boston.com]

    I would definitely suggest checking out the entire Open Debates sites. Pay special attention to the New section [opendebates.org] that has editorials from tons of newspapers calling for the inclusion of third-party candidates in the debates.
    • You can add to the Gore analogy. The votes for Perot in 92 elected Clinton. The Dems never complain about that twist, just Nader taking their votes.

      Every vote counts. As a participant in a write-in campaign in NM in 1982, we were part of the third time in the history of the U.S. that a write-in was sent to Congress. The original Dem. died after the primary. He was a conservative and the Republicans didn't oppose. They were not allowed to add a candidate by law, and the Governor put his nephew on the ballot

  • The REAL reason 3rd parties don't work in the US (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @09:24AM (#10220335)
    As somebody who almost always votes Libertarian, I've done a lot of thinking, and I think that the real reason that 3rd party candidates will never have a chance in the US us due to the media. The media reports every 30 seconds what they think that the votign breakdown will be (ie: 45% Democrat, 51% Republican). The problem is that people always get into this "throwing away my vote" mentality. What needs to be done is polls need to be eliminated. All polls. They need to be made illegal. Voting in this country was designed to be a system in which each person votes for the person that they want to elect. Period. The media plays a very, very significant role in convincing people who they should vote for, and that just fucks everything up. As long as the media is reporting that the Democrats have this much vote, yada, yada, nobody is going to bother voting for a thrid party candidate because they believe that they will be "throwing away their vote". Ban public election polling.

    Registered Libertarian.

    • Re:The REAL reason 3rd parties don't work in the U (Score:4, Funny)

      by Jonas the Bold ( 701271 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @09:46AM (#10220401)
      See, I find the above absolutely hilarious, since libertarians want to DE-regulate everything, and making a law that you can't poll people would be completely against their principles.

      On a side note, the problem I have with libertarian ideology is the same problem that i have with communism ideology: It just doesn't account for human nature.
    • As somebody who almost always votes Libertarian...

      What needs to be done is polls need to be eliminated. All polls. They need to be made illegal.

      Better take another pass over your Libertarian handbook. Start with index entries "Force, Initiation of" and "Government, Big."
    • I love many of the things the Libertarian party stands for, but every damn time you give them TV time what do they do? Go on about pot.

      The Libetarians will never be taken seriously if they keep going on about drugs. They are defeated before they ever get to the polls because of it.

      Of the two major parties neither disgusts me more than the Democrats who ACTIVELY prevent others from running. The prime example being Nader. While I don't agree with him he HAS A RIGHT.

      Unfortunately a new third party isn't
      • If the LP dropped the pot angle they would no longer be Libertarian!
        Many people say that the LP would win them over if it wasn't for x or y part of the platform, well, the LP considers itself "The Party of Principle". It is a fairly consistent political ideology, it does not pander to polls, and we like it that way.
        This election, vote Badnarik [badnarik.org] for President.
      • "I love many of the things the Libertarian party stands for, but every damn time you give them TV time what do they do? Go on about pot.

        The Libetarians will never be taken seriously if they keep going on about drugs. They are defeated before they ever get to the polls because of it."

        Actually every time I see a Libertarian talking about thier parties stance on recreational drugs of any sort it's because the media person involved is trying to paint them as 'the loony drug party' not because 'they go on
    • The real reason third parties don't work in the US is our first past the post (FPTP) voting system, otherwise known as Plurality voting. Duverger's Law posits that FPTP naturally leads to a two-party system. If we had ranked choice voting (RCV, also known as instant runoff voting, or IRV), those who prefer a libertarian candidate would be able to safely vote for this candidate and also choose a major party candidate to whom their vote could go if the libertarian candidate wasn't going to win. This would
    • Registered Libertarian.

      You might be registered, but your post proves you're no Libertarian. "Government regulation is good if it helps us get into power" isn't a libertarian ideal.

      • Just because the previous poster is a registered libertarian and tends to vote libertarian in elections doesn't mean that he actually wants the libertarian party to take over complete control of the country.

        Perhaps he votes libertarian in the hopes that a major party will, in the future, attempt to garner some of the "libertarian vote" by adopting some libertarian principles, or by re-adopting those libertarian principles that they used to pay lip service to, but have recently found it convenient to disca

  • Minnesota. (Score:5, Funny)

    by -kertrats- ( 718219 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @10:00AM (#10220445) Journal
    I live in Minnesota. Wanna try and convince me that voting for a third part throws away my vote?

  • FLAWED OUTDATED DEMOCRACY (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 11, 2004 @11:45AM (#10220858)
    The major flaw was that national elections are held on a first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all basis. Which means that if three or more candidates compete in a race, it's virtually guaranteed that somebody with less than a majority of the vote will end up winning political power. The result of this flaw is non-democratic minority rule, instead of the democratic ideal of majority rule.

    A good example of this happened in the 2002 election in my state of Vermont, where the Republican candidates became Governor and Lieutenant Governor with 45 percent and 41 percent of the vote respectively because each had more votes than his Democratic or Progressive opponents alone. (Example: Republican Brian Dubie - 41%; Democrat Peter Shumlin - 32%; Progressive Anthony Pollina - 25%. The Republican "won.") The majority of Vermont voters selected liberal or progressive candidates, but conservatives are in charge of the state - the exact anti-democratic result that gave some of the Framers nightmares.

    James Madison was the most outspokenly worried about this. In the 1787 Federalist #10, he goes into a lengthy discussion of the danger of "factions" - one aspect of what we today call political parties - emerging. First he puts a good face on the problem, suggesting that the new Constitution will solve the "violence" done to democracy by factions. But in the next sentence, he admits his fear that he and the other Framers had not truly solved the problem of what would happen if "factions" were to emerge.

    "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union [based on the Constitution], none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction," wrote Madison. "The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. ... The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished..."

    The problem was that if factions were to emerge as political parties, it would mean there could only be two of them, for if more than two parties emerged then the majority of people would almost always remain unrepresented, while the most well-organized minority would end up ruling.

    Madison concluded by saying he felt the Constitution he and Hamilton were promoting with the Federalist Papers was the best solution they could come up with to solve the problem of factions.

    But, as he noted, the constitution wasn't perfect: "The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger [of factions] on this side, as was wished and expected." His only solution was to beg Americans not to form factions.

    Although George Washington was soon thereafter elected unanimously and by acclimation, America's second presidential election (won by John Adams) almost immediately led to the creation of Madison's feared "factions" in the form of Vice-President Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" party (today called the "Democratic Party"). Ever since then, we've largely been a two-party nation - because our Constitution is written in a way that causes anything else to result in the least democratic outcome to an election.

    Most of the rest of the world, however, has learned from our mistake and taken a different path.

    Of the 86 other "fully democratic" nations in the world (according to the UN), only a few like Greece and Australia had repeated our mistake, although Australia solved the problem with a national variation on what in America is called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), where you select your first, second, third, etc., preference among candidates, and if there's no majority winner, the "instant runoff" is instantl

  • Badnarik's web site (Score:2, Informative)

    by knobboy ( 113080 )
    Since I didn't see it explicitly mentioned on the linked story: http://www.badnarik.org

  • I've worked on this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by br00tus ( 528477 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @04:38PM (#10222434)
    I recently worked to get a Green on the ballot for assemblyman. We needed hundreds of signatures. Only people within his district, or notary publics, could witness the petition. I spent hours on three different days trying to get signatures and got none (well, I was with someone and let them get a signature of someone who would sign, so I sort of shared one).

    The people I talked to usually didn't speak English, weren't from the district, or weren't registered voters (and you can't legally register someone and have them sign on the same day). If I could find a registered voter who lived in the district, often they didn't sign for a variety of reasons (too busy, scared the Democrat might lose, wanted to think it over).

    When the Green Party was on the New York state ballot, you only needed a dozen or so signatures, not hundreds with all of those conditions. Miraculously, he made it on the ballot, but there is no way he would have survived a challenge if one had been made.

    It gave me a new appreciation of the whole talk about the two party system and so forth. Plus, the two parties work together to keep their monopoly of power, from election laws, to debates, to whatever. Only a large social movement united around cohesive goals could launch a challenge to it. The last time this happened was in the middle of the 19th century, with the Republican party. Since then, third parties have been co-opted by other political parties - the right wing of the Socialist party drifted into the Democratic party, most of the Dixiecrats entered the Republican party.

  • Badly designed phone polls (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chiph ( 523845 ) on Saturday September 11, 2004 @05:20PM (#10222635)
    I got a call the other night from an automated poll taker:

    "If you intend to vote for George Bush, press or say '1'.
    If you intend to vote for John Kerry, press or say '2'.
    If you are undecided, press or say '3'."

    I pressed 4.

    Chip H.

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Close