[el chupacabra]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...on_el_pr/nader



Well you guys can read why. Basically just the democratic party using all its money to find loop holes and technicalities in the legal system to punch down the little guy.

Just a bunch of BS really.

The dems really don't know how to run a campaign. Bush isnt really that hard to beat. Constantly attacking Bush and Nader instead of focusing on what their own policies should be is not the way to go.

Watching these damn parties fight reminds me of some pathetic franternity rivalry... Bunch of sissies trying to play house and get upset about petty irrelevant issues.

[voodoo]

Oh well. I wonder how the Nader supporters in Florida will react to this.

[BlackGriffen]

The Dems aren't the only ones with filth on them on this issue. Naders "supporters" have resorted to some dirty tricks to get him on ballots. Nader has been kicked off more ballots than just Flordia, often for gathering insufficient petition signatures. What's not often said is that a lot of the petitions are being driven by Bush supporters, and that a lot of the disqualified signatures were downright fraudulent.

If you're complaining about ballot access laws in general, then that's not just the Dems, either, though they certainly share the blame for them. As long as they are the law, however, there is nothing unethical about insisting that people stick to the law and not commit voter fraud. It would be unfair to other candidates denied access if we give special treatment to Nader.

The Florida case, IIRC, involves ruling that the Reform Party does not deserve automatic ballot access anymore. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but if the party doesn't live up to the standards for automatic access, it shouldn't have it.

If you don't like the rules, then lobby to get them changed. Good luck trying to get significant support from either party, though, seeing as how the laws form a bulwark defending their position of prominence in national politics.

BlackGriffen

[Millennium]

I thought he'd only gotten on the ballot through a rather tricky set of loopholes, anyway.

I'll grant the bit about the Dems not running a very effective campaign right now, though. I don't know if I'd say defeating Bush would be easy -doable, certainly, but it's going to be a hard fight- but Kerry could certainly be playing a better game than he is right now.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Oh well. I wonder how the Nader supporters in Florida will react to this.

They'll just do a write-in.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
They'll just do a write-in.

Well, bear in mind that states do not have to permit write ins. I don't know if FL offers them or not.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Well, bear in mind that states do not have to permit write ins. I don't know if FL offers them or not.

Good point.

I suppose my rationale is, if a person's crazed enough to vote for Nader, writing him in on a ballot isn't going to slow them down very much.

[BRussell]

I heard that even Bush didn't make it on the ballot - missed the deadline by a day.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Well, bear in mind that states do not have to permit write ins. I don't know if FL offers them or not.

No, I think that they have to permit write-ins. The problem is that write-ins generally don't get as many votes as if they were on the ballot. Whether it's a psychological barrier, or people not realizing that they can write-in, or whatever.

BlackGriffen

[greenamp]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The Dems aren't the only ones with filth on them on this issue. Naders "supporters" have resorted to some dirty tricks to get him on ballots. Nader has been kicked off more ballots than just Flordia, often for gathering insufficient petition signatures. What's not often said is that a lot of the petitions are being driven by Bush supporters, and that a lot of the disqualified signatures were downright fraudulent.

If you're complaining about ballot access laws in general, then that's not just the Dems, either, though they certainly share the blame for them. As long as they are the law, however, there is nothing unethical about insisting that people stick to the law and not commit voter fraud. It would be unfair to other candidates denied access if we give special treatment to Nader.

The Florida case, IIRC, involves ruling that the Reform Party does not deserve automatic ballot access anymore. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but if the party doesn't live up to the standards for automatic access, it shouldn't have it.

If you don't like the rules, then lobby to get them changed. Good luck trying to get significant support from either party, though, seeing as how the laws form a bulwark defending their position of prominence in national politics.

BlackGriffen

Gimme a break. Why on earth would a Bush supporter not want Nader on the ballot? A jaded Republican is not going to vote for Nadar, plain and simple. Nader's votes come from jaded Democrats. Nader is the Ross Perot of the Democratic party.

Nice spin though

[BRussell]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Nader is the Ross Perot of the Democratic party.

Nice spin though

It's interesting that you use him as an example. People say that Perot took votes mainly from Republicans because he seemed kinda conservative. But all the analyses I've seen suggest that Perot took more votes from Clinton than from Bush, because Perot was basically an anti-incumbent candidate.

I'm sure Nader takes more votes from Kerry than Bush, but I bet it's not as many as people think. I checked into this a while back, and Nader's presence in polls didn't change things all that much.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Gimme a break. Why on earth would a Bush supporter not want Nader on the ballot? A jaded Republican is not going to vote for Nadar, plain and simple. Nader's votes come from jaded Democrats. Nader is the Ross Perot of the Democratic party.

Nice spin though

Ok, pull your head out and think. Why would a Bush supporter want someone on the ballot who would draw support from jaded Democrats (ie, draw support away from John Kerry)?

Here's one example of a Bush supporter who thinks exactly that way:

Another Republican, Sam Jones, had different motives for signing the petition.
“I signed it because I want to get Nader’s name anywhere that’s possible, because it will help Bush get re-elected,” said the 20-year-old junior.

Here's another one:

While Republican strategists in New Hampshire say the Democrats fear the competition at the polls, Nader supporters say the Republicans are getting behind their candidate because they feel Bush can’t win the state without the third party candidate siphoning votes off from Kerry.

Here:

Nader’s campaign had submitted more than 22,000 signatures to Arizona election officials June 9 — far more than the 14,694 valid signatures required by state law to compete against President Bush and Kerry.

Two Democratic voters had filed a lawsuit last week, backed by the Arizona Democratic Party, questioning the validity of Nader’s nominating petitions and other documents. The Democrats argued that more than 70 percent of the signatures were invalid.

As a Maricopa County Superior Court judge prepared to hear arguments in the case, Nader campaign attorney Richard Mahrle conceded there were “technical errors” in the ballot petition and said Nader would not contest the lawsuit.

Judge Mark Armstrong then issued an order that Nader be kept off the state ballot.

here:

The effort to get Nader on the ballot in Iowa has drawn scrutiny in recent weeks as volunteers who said they were supporting President Bush have appeared outside Bush-Cheney campaign events in Clive and Cedar Rapids, asking Republicans to sign a petition for Nader.

Here:

Groups allied with President Bush are encouraging their conservative members to do the seemingly unthinkable: attend a convention Saturday to help put left-leaning independent candidate Ralph Nader on the Oregon presidential ballot.

The groups -- with the encouragement of some Republican political operatives -- are telling their members that Nader would draw votes from Democrat Sen. John Kerry and boost Bush's chances of winning Oregon.

Here:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In response to the growing grassroots support among right-wing Republicans for Nader, and given the need to make the alliance between Ralph Nader and Bush supporters more official, TheNaderFactor.com launched a new petition that calls on Ed Gillespie, RNC Chairman, to let Ralph Nader speak to his right wing supporters at next week's Republican National Convention in New York City.

Last, the biased source:

So I've already reported that over 90 percent of petitions were from registered Republicans. But, as it turns out, many of those petitioners probably didn't even know they were signing on behalf of Nader!

This is how it shook out:

The petition collectors were working for a GOP outfit, and were collecting signatures for two high-profile ballot initiatives. One is the "Protect Arizona Now" initiative, which is an anti-immigrant effort. The other is an attempt to repeal Arizona's landmark Clean Elections Bill which provides for public financing of political campaigns.

The actual Nader petition did its best to fudge its purpose. The petitioners only said they were collecting signatures for an "independent candidate". The words "RALPH NADER" were buried in the petition page in 9pt font.

Are you satisfied yet?

BlackGriffen

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Oh well. I wonder how the Nader supporters in Florida will react to this.

I hear they are both pretty upset

[voodoo]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I hear they are both pretty upset

[cpt kangarooski]

BlackGriffen--

No, I think that they have to permit write-ins.

I refer you to Burdick v. Takushi, 504 US 428 (1992). In the case, only one person ran for a seat for the state's House. The plaintiff wanted to write in someone else. Write ins were illegal. The Supreme Court found that there were enough other ways to get on the ballot, that since the purpose of elections is to get someone elected, not to voice protests, and so a reasonable, nondiscriminatory law founded on the state's interest in having a well-run election, such as here, would be constitutional.

So unless there's something pretty bad going on with FL election law, no they don't. They might, I don't know, but they don't have to.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
BlackGriffen--


I refer you to Burdick v. Takushi, 504 US 428 (1992). In the case, only one person ran for a seat for the state's House. The plaintiff wanted to write in someone else. Write ins were illegal. The Supreme Court found that there were enough other ways to get on the ballot, that since the purpose of elections is to get someone elected, not to voice protests, and so a reasonable, nondiscriminatory law founded on the state's interest in having a well-run election, such as here, would be constitutional.

So unless there's something pretty bad going on with FL election law, no they don't. They might, I don't know, but they don't have to.

That's forked up, man.

I know that they allow write-ins here in MoMoland (UT).

BG

[:dragonflypro:]

Loop holes or not, it is still pretty damn smarmy…and to then go on with the whole 'disenfranchisement" sing-song about how evil the right is.

The Dem's are playing some dirty ball at the voter's expense. Not dirt on candidates. Not informational campaigns on policy. Just dirty works, even if technically ok, targeting the voter's choice. That ain't right.

T

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The Dems aren't the only ones with filth on them on this issue. Naders "supporters" have resorted to some dirty tricks to get him on ballots. Nader has been kicked off more ballots than just Flordia, often for gathering insufficient petition signatures.

I know but its not right that he was kicked off any of them and considering the ridiculous amount of signiture you have to get to be on the ballot Nader was using whatever mass way was possible without knowing exactly everything that was going on. I wouldn't call him "dirty". You can't expect him actually know every person and go up to every person and get the signatures.

What's not often said is that a lot of the petitions are being driven by Bush supporters.

Actually everyone knows that

If you're complaining about ballot access laws in general, then that's not just the Dems, either, though they certainly share the blame for them.

I am complaining about the laws in general and the dems aren't the evil-est but they are the bad guys this time around.

As long as they are the law, however, there is nothing unethical about insisting that people stick to the law and not commit voter fraud. It would be unfair to other candidates denied access if we give special treatment to Nader.

Yes there is something unethical about it because the laws are unethical. We shouldn't give special treament to Nader...the laws should be changed so that it's easyer for everyone to get ballot access so we can get out of this 2 party circle of bs that accomplishes very little in this country.

Lets see what are the big issues of the year?

- fighting about abortion in a way thats been done many times before and never worked..and even though we can't take care of the orphans we have

-Lets spend millions fighting to get rid of "god" from the dollar bill and everything. What an outrage this is to have the word god or any religous symbols on any public property.

-Does Kerry drive and SUV?
-Lets argue about whether or not kerry really did deserve his medals.
-Lets undo everything the last president did./I'm going to undo everything the president has done.

As you see all extremely important issues that the country could fall apart if not addressed. Its a [edit: chicken] fight. This is what happens when you put 2 chickens together. They constantly fight to gain power over the other. If you put many chickens together however they establish whos dominant once then they establish a social order in which case they do productive things like find food and warn of predators.

If you don't like the rules, then lobby to get them changed. Good luck trying to get significant support from either party, though, seeing as how the laws form a bulwark defending their position of prominence in national politics.

Yea thats the problem

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by :dragonflypro::
Loop holes or not, it is still pretty damn smarmy…and to then go on with the whole 'disenfranchisement" sing-song about how evil the right is.

The Dem's are playing some dirty ball at the voter's expense. Not dirt on candidates. Not informational campaigns on policy. Just dirty works, even if technically ok, targeting the voter's choice. That ain't right.

T

exactly

If Kerry doesn't like the votes being taken away from him then he should spend more time comming up with a plan for... something, and then spend more time explaining it, like Nader has...whether right or wrong at least Nader took the time to right books on all his policies so everyone knows what he stands for and they know exactly how he's going to do it.

edit: by the way is true that in washington now you have to vote for a party... you can't vote unless you chose a party first then you have to vote for everyone of that party or your vote doesn't count?

[cpt kangarooski]

el chupacabra--

edit: by the way is true that in washington now you have to vote for a party... you can't vote unless you chose a party first then you have to vote for everyone of that party or your vote doesn't count?

Huh?

Washington used to have an open primary. Thus, regardless of your party affiliation, you could vote in any party's primary. That's been held unconstitutional, so now you can only vote in a party's primary if you're a member of that party, or if the party allows non-members to vote in their primary.

But you can vote for anyone you want in the general election in November, and you don't have to join any party at all to do so.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Ok, pull your head out and think. Why would a Bush supporter want someone on the ballot who would draw support from jaded Democrats (ie, draw support away from John Kerry)?

Here's one example of a Bush supporter who thinks exactly that way:

Here's another one:


Here:

here:


Here:


Here:


Last, the biased source:

Are you satisfied yet?

BlackGriffen

Those links and quotes did nothing to support your theory that Bush supporters are equally behind the movements, with Kerry supporters, to keep nader off the ballot. In fact, they actually proved the opposite.

I repeat, a jaded Bush supporter is most likely NOT going to find a common cause with the Nader camp. Nader takes from votes Kerry, not Bush.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Those links and quotes did nothing to support your theory that Bush supporters are equally behind the movements, with Kerry supporters, to keep nader off the ballot. In fact, they actually proved the opposite.

I repeat, a jaded Bush supporter is most likely NOT going to find a common cause with the Nader camp. Nader takes from votes Kerry, not Bush.

Qyou misunderstood him from the start. His point was that Republicans were in fact gathering signatures for Nader to get him on the ticket to undermine Kerry.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Those links and quotes did nothing to support your theory that Bush supporters are equally behind the movements, with Kerry supporters, to keep nader off the ballot. In fact, they actually proved the opposite.

I repeat, a jaded Bush supporter is most likely NOT going to find a common cause with the Nader camp. Nader takes from votes Kerry, not Bush.

No offense but I think you need to re-read the thread. BG is not saying what you think he's saying.

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Qyou misunderstood him from the start. His point was that Republicans were in fact gathering signatures for Nader to get him on the ticket to undermine Kerry.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
No offense but I think you need to re-read the thread. BG is not saying what you think he's saying.

That's the sound of an, "Ooohhhhh...."

[mr. natural]

Posted By BRussell:

WTFWJD

LOL!!!


I suggest, he'd get nailed to another cross but it would get reported as an aberrant gay bashing attack.





Basically, Jesus would have a hard time competing with Britney et al in People Magazine.

[greenamp]

My apologies to BG. I misunderstood you.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by greenamp:
My apologies to BG. I misunderstood you.

NP, I misunderstood you right back.

BG

[el chupacabra]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
...snip...
QUOTE]

Ok thanks for clearing that up. Theres been a lot of complaining about it with Washington people to these exagerated effects. But now it doesnt seem that bad at least.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Ok thanks for clearing that up. Theres been a lot of complaining about it with Washington people to these exagerated effects. But now it doesnt seem that bad at least.

Meh. I used to live in WA, and it is annoying. Used to be I, as an independent, could vote in party primaries if I wanted to. Or democrats could vote in the Republican Primary, etc. This was fun, and a lot of people are upset about losing it.

I agree with the constitutional point, I'm just not thrilled with it.

Personally, if I had my way, I'd abolish state funding or operation of party primaries at all. Let 'em figure it out their own damn selves. And I would have totally open ballot access for the general election; no petitions, no prior vote shares, just file by the deadline, and the deadline is the last minute before it has to go to the printers. And write ins would be accepted.

[tie]

Originally posted by el chupacabra:
Well you guys can read why. Basically just the democratic party using all its money to find loop holes and technicalities in the legal system to punch down the little guy.
...
The dems really don't know how to run a campaign.

You're wrong, this is exactly how to run a campaign. The dems lost in 2000 because Bush was more aggressive at pushing his side. Bush played tough, while Gore sat back (for example not challenging illegal [postdated] military ballots) -- and Bush emerged the winner. The Republicans aren't going to sit back this time either, and the Democrats need to match them. It's common sense, and I don't see anything illegal or even "wrong" here so I think it is fine.

[Zimphire]

They need to make sure no one has registered in more than one state too. Can't have the Dems cheating like they did the last time.

[BlackGriffen]

Also of note is that Jeb Bush and crew tried to print Nader on the ballots in spite of the court ruling. If that isn't slimy, I don't know what is.

Could Jeb Bush be thrown in jail for contempt of court?

FL supreme court hearing the case Fri morning.

BG

[voodoo]

Nader is baaaaaaack!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3658302.stm

"Ralph Nader can be listed on Florida ballots as a candidate in the US presidential election after a ruling by the state electoral chief.

The decision contradicts a temporary court order which told Florida to keep Mr Nader off the ballot.

The Democratic party has reacted angrily, calling the move "blatant partisan manoeuvring"."

[Zimphire]

partisan?

HOW DARE THEY LET ANOTHER PARTY ON THE BALLOT!

HOW DARE THEY MAKE KERRY WIN BY CREDIBILITY ALONE!

[PacHead]

How democratic of the um, democratic party. More like the gestapo party, since they're doing whatever they can inorder to keep that guy off of ballots all across the country.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
partisan?

HOW DARE THEY LET ANOTHER PARTY ON THE BALLOT!

HOW DARE THEY MAKE KERRY WIN BY CREDIBILITY ALONE!

BS as usual. If it isn't partisan, why then is Jebby so involved? Gee you're silly.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Nader is baaaaaaack!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3658302.stm

"Ralph Nader can be listed on Florida ballots as a candidate in the US presidential election after a ruling by the state electoral chief.

The decision contradicts a temporary court order which told Florida to keep Mr Nader off the ballot.

The Democratic party has reacted angrily, calling the move "blatant partisan manoeuvring"."

I don't like how that was worded. They called it a ruling as if the person who did it were a judicial figure. This is an appointed bureaucrat defying a court order.

Not good.

We'll see what happens Friday.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deedar:
BS as usual. If it isn't partisan, why then is Jebby so involved? Gee you're silly.

What a stupid comment.

That is like saying that anything that goes on in Washington is automatically Partisan because Bush is involved.

There is NO DOUBT that the Repubs want this there. My point being, If Kerry was a STRONGER opponent, The Dems would not have to worry about it.

Taking him OFF the Ballot because your part representative doesn't cut it isn't the answer.

That isn't "Fair"

If Kerry was a stronger candidate, there wouldn't be people voting for Nader.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I don't like how that was worded. They called it a ruling as if the person who did it were a judicial figure. This is an appointed bureaucrat defying a court order.

Not good.

We'll see what happens Friday.

BlackGriffen

Perhaps literally here: http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/

This blog is useful for updates: http://abstractappeal.com/

Far from over yet.

[Zimphire]

Next thing you know the Dems will try to get Bush off the ballot because he would be taking too many votes away from Kerry.

What cracks me up

The Democratic party has reacted angrily, calling the move "blatant partisan manoeuvring"

And trying to get him OFF the ballot isn't?



What a moron.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If Kerry was a stronger candidate, there wouldn't be people voting for Nader.

Speaking of stupid comments.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Speaking of stupid comments.

No that isn't a stupid comment. I know a lot of dems that would otherwise vote for the Democrat that have decided to vote green because they dislike Kerry.

Just like I know some Righty's that are voting for green because they dislike Bush.

It just so happens there are more on the left voting for green.

If kerry was a better candidate those people would be giving him their vote.

olePigeon here is some advice. When you make such a comment like you did above, at least back up your assertion like I did.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No that isn't a stupid comment...

You said that no one would vote for Nader if Kerry was a stronger candidate. Even if Kerry was the best Democrat to hit the ballot, Nader would still get votes from hardcore greenparty.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
You said that no one would vote for Nader if Kerry was a stronger candidate. Even if Kerry was the best Democrat to hit the ballot, Nader would still get votes from hardcore greenparty.

No one that would take votes away from Kerry. They aren't worrying about the hard core green party people.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No one that would take votes away from Kerry. They aren't worrying about the hard core green party people.

Then that wouldn't be no one, would it?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Then that wouldn't be no one, would it?

Boy you sure got me...

Good job.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Boy you sure got me...

Good job.

You heard it here first, folks.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
You heard it here first, folks.

Maybe these are a good idea after all.

[lurkalot]

Just to be on the safe side.

A Green Party vote this year in the U.S. Presidential election means a vote for David Cobb & Patricia LaMarche

Voting Ralph Nader & Peter Cameo is not technically a Green Party vote but a Reform Party vote.

This thread is about the legal actions to determine if the Reform Party and its candidate Ralph Nader followed Florida election law and whether or not they should be on the ballot in Florida.

Right?

[lurkalot]

Not quite as funny as voting for a dead candidate but putting a dead party on the ballots can also prove to be entertaining. The Reform Party, formerly associated with Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, has been resurrected and will appear on the Florida ballot with Ralph Nader as its Presidential hopeful, to further its political messsage.

In most of the other states where he appears on the ballot, Nader seems to be either an independent or the candidate for the populist party.

Perhaps not the most significant sentence in the Florida Supreme Court order but given the election history in that state nevertheless worth repeating, I think.

"The State, however, has a "substantial state interest in encouraging
compromise and political stability, in attempting to ensure that the election winner
will represent a majority of the community and in providing the electorate with an
understandable ballot."

Ralph Nader must be feeling that butterfly sensation again after this ruling.

A quick reminder. A Green Party vote this year in the U.S. Presidential election means a vote for David Cobb & Patricia LaMarche