American Ballot Laws...

[Sephirstein]

Why do political parties require a certain level of popularity to receive their name on a ballot? It's ass-backwards laws like this that keep the libertarians out of power.

[Serendipity]

Hi Seph, long time no see! http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/smile.gif

Ummm. Here in the UK all you need to do to get on a ballot sheet is pay a refundable deposit for each parliamentary seat your party wishes to contest. This deposit used to be £500 but I think it's gone up in order to dissuade the lunatic fringe (or at least the less affluent lunatic fringe). If your party gets less than a certain percentage of the vote (or less than a certain number of votes, I'm not sure), the deposit is forfeited.

Please explain more fully how it works in Canada, and the US if you know.

[ogb]

Yes, tell us how it works in the USA and Canada!
Here you have to get a certain number of signatures (1000?, I could look it up, but I am too lazy right now) to enrole as a party. Then you can take part in any election, but you have to finance it on your own. Only with a minimum % you are getting some money back.

[aclu14]

Um, the commies got something like 500 votes in the last pres election in Florida alone. Did you vote for them, Idnew?

------------------
I'll think of a better sig when I feel like it! Now stop bothering me! :D

[Idnew]

http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/tongue.gif aclu and what commies would you be talking about?

Hi again Seph. I don't know if your talking individual State, Country or local. As for as local goes you just pay a fee to get on the ballot. Think that's the same for State. Not sure how they get on for say President but I think they have to have so many signatures and maybe a fee. Really not sure. Something to research I guess.

------------------
(ô¿ô)Proud member of the Dumb Laws Mod Squad so watch it!*smile*

Attitude Ajustments Gladly Performed(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
Meet The Squad (http://www.geocities.com/idnew52/Mod_Squad_Poster.htm)

[cleoeo]

If a special interest group can't drum up enough signatures showing people support their platform, why should the taxpayers fund an ego trip for the group's leaders? The Libertarian Party is now on the ballot in most places they choose to field a candidate. They earned that right by proving they have enough support out there to warrant it. We don't want the ballots full of "pink flamingo party" candidtates!

[Serendipity]

Here we try to keep that sort of thing to a minimum too. There is one notable exception: The Official Monster Raving Loony Party (http://www.omrlp.com/), who are welcome to stand in any seat as far as I'm concerned. Their leader, Screaming Lord Sutch, died a few years ago, so the party duly replaced him with his cat. There have been many other fringe parties, I think we should just stick with this one. Single-issue parties are a little more suspect, I reckon. In the last election one seat was won by a party who want to sort out the local hospital. A noble enough cause, but what (else) do they know about politics? And as for the extreme right, the more I research them the less I like them.

[ogb]

Originally posted by cleoeo:
We don't want the ballots full of "pink flamingo party" candidtates!

This reminds me of the late 80s. There we had a quite famous (but not successful) seniors party called "Grey Panthers"! On elections it is always fun to take a look at the parties on the bottom. There you find "The Cardrivers Party" or "The beerdrinker party"

[aclu14]

I went on that site Dippy! It was really funny and I agreed with some of their policies(above all, screw the metric system!). We need a party like this here in the USA!

------------------
I'll think of a better sig when I feel like it! Now stop bothering me! :D

This system helps the Democrats and Republicans keep their stranglehold on power. Together they do their best to keep the competition between themselves, so that when we vote one out, we by default vote the other one in. In fact, I have heard many people more concerned with who was leaving office than who was entering. Then the next election, they do it all over again. It's like Coke and Pepsi doing their best to occupy all of the soda aisle at your grocery store. Or like McDonald's and Burger King eliminating all other restaurants from your neighborhood. When you get sick of one, you can go to the other. Oh, boy. Is that really freedom of choice? I would rather have more choices than less choices (that someone I don't even know narrows down for me). I prefer to do my own thinking and live with the results.

[ogb]

Of course this is freedom of choice. Neither are you bound to vote for Democats or Republicans concerning politic matters, nor are you forced to buy Coke or Pepsi in a store. Naturally all of those have an interest to keep the power, but it depends on the voters/consumers. What would you do different? Forcing them to give up their power? I don't want to be the one who has to equalise their damage.

Nobody is forced to vote for a Democrat or a Republican, like nobody is forced to buy Coke or Pepsi. But if that is all the store offers, you can buy one of these or choose not to buy soda at all. You never had a chance to buy root beer, orange, grape, etc. Perhaps you could go out of your way and travel to find a store that has the selection you like. Just as the politicians of the big parties have most of us brainwashed to vote Democrat, Republican, or not at all. Only those who make the effort to educate themselves about other parties would consider voting for them. How many people vote for someone who is not on the ballot? Similarly, how many people would go out of their way in search of root beer? Would you even know what it was if it wasn't sold in your area? Most would just grab a bottle of Coke or Pepsi. The people who operate supermarkets and the people who run political parties have one important thing in common--they both study human behavior and how to influence it. They are both trying to sell something.

[aclu14]

Ugh, Disconnected. You didn't mention iced tea or Sprite.
Also, Sprite pretty much holds the monopoly on lemon-lime drinks too. And there's 7-Up, Citra, and generic supermarket brands which taste the same.

------------------
I'll think of a better sig when I feel like it! Now stop bothering me! :D

ACLU, do you really want to encourage me? Haven't I ranted enough? What it all boils down to is Coca Cola, Inc. and PepsiCola, Inc. will do anything in their power to get us to choose one of their products. Likewise, the Democrats and Republicans do the same. Limiting our perception of choices is job numero uno.
Examples, you say? How many people think that voting other than Democratic or Republican means throwing your vote away? These people have been successfully brainwashed.
Midwesterners are so brainwashed to think "Coke" that they call any soda of any flavor "Coke". No kidding, go to Oklahoma City if you don't believe this.
See what happens when you get me started? Now I will get off my soap box because all of this typing is making me thirsty. Now, should I have a Coke, or a Pepsi...

[ogb]

Originally posted by Disconnected:

How many people think that voting other than Democratic or Republican means throwing your vote away? These people have been successfully brainwashed.
Midwesterners are so brainwashed to think "Coke" that they call any soda of any flavor "Coke". No kidding, go to Oklahoma City if you don't believe this.


You will have this problems everywhere. We have five parties that may enter the parliament, but the other ones will never have a chance. This doesn't have anything to do with brainwashing. I also vote because of tactical reason, which automatically means that I won't vote for minor parties.
In Germany you say 'Cola' regardless to the producer, although Pepsi doesn't like it. You could expand your problem to every product as new companies will always have difficulties to enter the market - but you cannot divide the market anew.

[cleoeo]

Here in Wisconsin, if you're thirsty you can buy a pop or get free water from the bubbler.

Sauk County is so heavily Republican that the race for Sherrif is the Republican primary. Waste of time for any other party to even field a candidate in the main election.

If Ralph Nader hadn't run, Gore would be our President right now.

Does anyone understand this Electorial College thing? That's what created half the mess of the last election as far as I'm concerned! If I understand this right, majority vote doesn't count-only the big states, CA. and the like. 51% of the people could live in all the smaller states, the big states have only 49% of the popular vote for canadate A and B could become president even though most people didn't want B. Is THAT democracy? I thought majority ruled. This is odd!

[paulgro]

If I understand it right, it goes the way you said. Many people don't vote because of it. They feel their vote doesn't count for anything...

------------------
"I have not failed. I've just found
10,000 ways that won't work."


Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
Mod Squad (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/MSPoster/ModSquad.html) Permit Man (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/Permit/PermitMan.html)

Lincoln, The Electoral College is easy to understand if you look at it like a sport, which it often resembles. A football team in America plays 16 games (forget the playoffs for now). Think of each vote as a point, and each state as a game. The football team that wins the most games is the champion, not the one with the most points. This way, whether you shut out an opponent or just squeak by, it's only one win. Each candidate has to win as many states as possible, just as any points scored last week means nothing for this week's game. This forces candidates to pay attention to smaller states. If a vote was a vote was a vote no matter where in the country it was cast, what candidate in his right mind would visit North Dakota, Idaho, etc.? They would stay in about a dozen states to reach the most people in a given amount of time. With the electoral college, they have to use strategy and appeal to more than just the big cities. It forces candidates into the more rural areas, and helps more complete representation.

[Serendipity]

...even though the guy who gets most votes doesn't necessarily win...

I kind of see what you're saying Disconnected. But back in 1776 there was no radio, t.v. or newspaper. Today though, you don't need to physically get around to get your voice heard. The Govenor doesn't need to visit every city in his state. Nor does the Mayor need to visit every ward in his town. To me it operates on the same principle:the modern media. Perhaps the theory behind it has done its job therefore. I just don't think it's right, or logical, from a Democratic standpoint, for the one with the least popular votes to win election.

I think the Electoral College is still a good idea because if all votes were counted in one group, the folks in the Midwest would turn on the TV and hear the candidates talking about big city issues with no thought given to them. That is who the candidates would cater to, the big cities, with the most votes per issue. Geographically speaking, most of the country would be ignored by the candidates. I'm sure the Founding Fathers were concerned about this, and the inventions of TV and radio don't change the issue.
Rather than suggest changing the Constitution, I always remember that the men who wrote it were much smarter than me. So I try to tune in to what they were thinking and I usually am better for it, if I can find their frequency. I fear that many people don't appreciate the brilliance in that document, and would change it for the worse.

[MacReady]

[This message has been edited by MacReady (edited January 13, 2002).]

[MacReady]

Originally posted by MacReady:
I am curious about America voting cuz since remember the Flordia voting issue that Bush's brother is a government of Flordia and had to do with voting screw up so Bush can win president. I believe Gore actually should have won cuz of more percentage of people in America voted for him but rules on voting in America doesnt make sense cuz which most states vote for president wins not how many people vote on whom. Also house of governments are one who have more control in voting than people and voting board are more interesting in legistors or government people's vote than people who waste time sign up to vote. So I have to say America voting system really sucks.

Mac, do you live under a better plan? The American system isn't perfect, but it's the best I know of. Maybe we're just not smart enough to appreciate the intelligence of those who created it.

[Sephirstein]

...As far as I'm concerned, the ideal democratic republic would have five things:

1) Instant Run-off Voting.

2) Proportional Representation.

3) Victory by most popular support.

4) Universal access to debates and ballots to all candidates and parties. (It works...Jesse Ventura wouldn't have won his Minnesota gubernatorial election without this access)

5) A requirement that every citizen of voting age to vote in muncipal, provincial/state (where applicable), and federal elections but an option to vote for none of the above. All votes for none of the above would be ignored, and voter turn out would be 100%.

[ogb]

Originally posted by Sephirstein:

4) Universal access to debates and ballots to all candidates and parties. (It works...Jesse Ventura wouldn't have won his Minnesota gubernatorial election without this access)

5) A requirement that every citizen of voting age to vote in muncipal, provincial/state (where applicable), and federal elections but an option to vote for none of the above. All votes for none of the above would be ignored, and voter turn out would be 100%.

Equal time for all parties and candidates? Please not, we got about 60 parties and more than 50 are unimportant and nobody wants to know them. But in Germany we have a quite a good similar rule: TV stations can choose to cover party spots before an election (for free). If they agree, then they have to show spots of all parties who want their spots on TV.
I don't quite get it: what's the special thing with no. 5?

[Phreakmeister]

We got kinda like the same here. Over here, the government has "bought" broadcasting time on the state-owned television channels. There, they show some kind of program, called Political Parties (in Dutch ofcourse), and there the political parties get a chance to present themselves to the people. But since there are so many parties (probably around 90), with new parties being formed every day, it's obvious that not every party will get time to show itself.



------------------
Do you believe in death after life?