Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Ballot Access - election reform |
| 10.30.04 (1:48 pm) [edit] |
|
This is in response to a comment by [url=http://juniperflux.tblog.com]juniperflux[/url] regarding Ralph Nader. Now, let me be clear- I in no way support Ralph Nader. I do, however, support the intentions of a democratic election system. Though there are certain limitations on who may run for President (must be 35, born in America), one endearing quality about our nation is that anyone capable of gaining the support and funding necessary can compete in a presidential election. Or, at least, that is how it is supposed to be. In reality, as this year's election race has shown, the Democratic and Republican Parties have a great deal of power, and this power is often wielded in attempts to deny candidates of other parties or independent candidates from contention. This is unfair. In Ralph Nader's case, his attempts to gain ballot access have resulted in lawsuits, challenges, and some small victories. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Nader and declared that he would not be granted ballot access in Pennsylvania. Nader will, however, be appearing on the ballot in 35 states, including D.C. How is it fair to the American public for a candidate for president to appear on the ballot in one state, but not another? Doesn't this place the citizens of Pennsylvania at an unfair disadvantage compared to New Yorkers because they are denied the option of voting for Ralph Nader? I can understand that some procedures need to be in place to provide measures for determining which candidates may appear on the ballot- otherwise we could have 1,000 different candidates for President. But it seems odd that a national race can be different in each state. I would think that it would make better sense to have some federal guidelines for determining ballot access, rather than making it a state-by-state issue. Generally, I prefer less federal influence in government, but when it comes to a federal campaign, I think it better serves all Americans to have national standards. It is also extremely petty that the Democrats have fought against Nader's attmepts to gain access to ballots. I can understand the fear that some who lean Democratic may vote for Nader instead, but that is only fair. If I want to vote for Nader, I should not be denied that opportunity simply because he may cause greater competition. We have all been somewhat convinced that we only have two options each election cycle and that there are only two valid political parties. They only have this power over us because we refuse to challenge it and too often simply go along with it. In the aftermath of the 2000 Election (debacle), it was clear that our system was flawed. Have there been any changes made to correct these flaws? Aside from the early voting initiative in Florida, which serves to give election officials in the state the time to correct their incompetence, nothing has been changed, and few challenges have been made to prompt election reform. But that is only to be expected- someone had to win the election, and do you think that person or his party is really going to place fixing the system that led to his election as a top priority? No- the only way things will change is if the citizens make it abundantly clear that change is necessary. This requires conviction and defiance. The Democratic and Republican Parties are becoming more and more like giant corporations with the dangerous power to control and determine our elections. The Electoral College consists of a slate of electors in each state selected by the Republican and Democratic Parties. As you know, it is the Electoral College that ultimately decides the winner. This means that, under the current system, there is a bias in the Electoral College. This is absolutely unfair and counter to democracy. All of us- Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents, etc.- should stand up and defend the interests of the voters. We need to work for a reform in our electoral system, and send a message that we will not tolerate corporate dominance corrupting our democratic elections. Denying Ralph Nader ballot access does nothing other than deny the rights of each citizen to choose from all valid options- if Nader is considered a valid option in New York, why not in Pennsylvania? Giving control over our elections to a slate of electors hand-picked by the Democratic Party or by the Republican Party or Libertarian Party (if that was the case) is unfair and a blemish on our so-called democratic society. So start sending a message on November 2nd by voting for [url=http://badnarik.org]Michael Badnarik[/url], [url=http://votenader.org]Ralph Nader[/url], or [url=http://votecobb.org]David Cobb[/url]. |
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 10.30.04 (11:00 am)
What I find even sadder is that whether or not a candidate's name is on the ballot is that important. You can write in Nader's name no matter what state you're in-- but apparently so many people have their votes influenced by just seeing someone's name on a ballot when its time to vote that this is important.
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 10.30.04 (7:43 pm)
Woo Hoo! I finally get to play the muse. :)
Serioualy, I had the opportunity a few years back to meet Nader and participate in a fairly intimate dinner/discussion with him, and while he would likely deny this, I don't think he really wants to be president at all. Rather, I think Nader's primary goal is to reform the electoral system. I think what Nader wants most of all is to see a multi-party system in which candidates cannot be owned by corporate sponsers. I think, for Nader, the fight isn't so much for the presidency, but for a change in how the presidency is decided ~ which, if I may be so bold to point out ~ makes his views very similar to your own. :)
Thanks taking time (out of your VERY busy schedule) to dive into this. Honestly, I think future history books will use the Nader-phenomenon as an example of the two party system run-amok. We can only hope that change is just around the corner.
j
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 10.30.04 (8:54 pm)
Reply to: juniperflux
Absolutely. I do respect and applaud Nader's efforts to reform the system and at least shake things up a bit, even if I disagree with some of his official positions on the issues.
If only we could get the media or some powerful lobbyists to comply with the idea of fairness and point out the need for change, I think it would be a very attainable goal.
Thanks for providing me with a topic. ;)
posted by: juniperflux (reply)
post date: 10.31.04 (7:49 am)
Reply to: DragonBait22
I had this discussion with another friend of mine recently and we determined that it's going to take a revolution... and the outcome of this election could very well spark one. Our electoral system needs a major overhaul. I just hope I live to see it happen.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 10.31.04 (11:59 am)
Reply to: juniperflux
No kidding, I think I'll dedicate my life to the cause of fixing our electoral system. ;)
Or maybe not, but I will try and make a difference somehow.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 10.31.04 (3:09 pm)
Nader needs to play by the same rules as everybody else, and that includes gathering signatures, and sticking to certain rules. Challenges to these things are nothing new. I remember these things going on back in the 1960's down to the local level. I'm sure it happened before then, but I wasn't born yet.
I knew an assemblyman who used to take petitions that he knew contained invalid signatures, and put a good petition on top of it. He would put them both on a glass table, shine a light through it, and trace the signatures, so he'd have nothing but good ones on the same sheet. Assuring that the signatures and petitions are valid is serious business, or at least it should be. There's a lot of fraud going on.
The parties have enough people that getting enough signatures on valid petitions is not a problem. It does limit things because getting on the ballot is not easy for those who are not affiliated. It need not be that way. Look at what happened in California for the recall election. Anybody with a small amount of money and a few signatures could get on the ballot. And so many people got on it, that it was extremely difficult to find the candidates of choice at voting time. It did not really affect things since the big names took essentially all the votes anyway.
Realistically, Nader not getting on the ballot will not affect his ability to win in the least. If he had enough support to be truly competitive, he would be on the ballot in all states.
