PA's Draconian laws prevent 3rd party candidates.

Did you know, in the "commonwealth" aka "state" of Pennsylvania the Republican party is required to have 2,000 signatures for their candidate to appear on the presidential ballot? You did? Good.

Did you also know that the Democratic party is required to have 2,000 signatures for their candidate to appear on the presidential ballot? You did? Good for you again!

Did you also know that a third party candidate, is required to have 26,000 signatures for their candidates to appear on the presidential ballot?????

No that isn't a typo. 3rd party candidates require 26,000 signatures compared to just 2,000.

So, just out of morbid curiosity, what draconian laws has your "state" enacted in order to keep the two party dictatorship in power? Or is your "state" more free thinking than mine?

According to the Green Party, a third-party candidate needs at least 26,000 signatures to appear on the ballot. The deadline to submit them is Aug. 1. Democratic and Republican presidential candidates need only 2,000 signatures.

readingeagle.com...


Another example of a state constricting it's choices to the two party dictatorship is Georgia.

Georgia has had fewer presidential candidates on the ballot in the last 30 years than any other state. Georgia's state definition of "political party" is a group that receives 20% of the vote for president in the entire USA, or 20% for Governor of Georgia. No party other than the Democrats and Republicans has met that definition in Georgia since 1912 (when the Progressive "Bull Moose" Party got 27% for president in the entire USA). Even when the American Party carried Georgia in the electoral college in 1968, that still didn't qualify the American Party, since even though it got over 50% in Georgia, it "only" got 13% in the entire USA. And no third party candidate for Governor of Georgia has polled 20% since 1898.

www.cofoe.org...

I am going to be SO unpopular but this is ATS and I already am. Think about this for a second. Can you imagine if every Tom Dick and Domo (I was going to try to make a Domo is a dick joke) got just 2k sigs as third party?

I guarantee I could get 2k people to sign something. You want me running? What about the neighbor? She's cute, she could rack *ahem* up a lot of signatures in a few days. So now you have 5,000 independents to deal with... Makes sense to me to curb it just a little.

Pretend everyone in the US just had carte blanche ( Fun story, I never saw this spelled and thought it was carp launch, wondered why people wanted to catapult fish ) to run. So now we have to wade through 50 MILLION potential candidates.

Originally posted by Domo1
I am going to be SO unpopular but this is ATS and I already am. Think about this for a second. Can you imagine if every Tom Dick and Domo (I was going to try to make a Domo is a dick joke) got just 2k sigs as third party?

I guarantee I could get 2k people to sign something. You want me running? What about the neighbor? She's cute, she could rack *ahem* up a lot of signatures in a few days. So now you have 5,000 independents to deal with... Makes sense to me to curb it just a little.

Pretend everyone in the US just had carte blanche ( Fun story, I never saw this spelled and thought it was carp launch, wondered why people wanted to catapult fish ) to run. So now we have to wade through 50 MILLION potential candidates.

Really? You think it's that easy to get signatures? The Green party has barely (I use that term loosly) 6,000 signatures. 6,000!! And they are a legitimate 3rd party with money to burn. And they are still 20,000 short from being on the ballot.

Yeah, getting 2,000 signatures is easy, I'll give you that.... but not 2,000 for a political party, that's like pulling teeth, then sending them the bill for it.

reply to post by Domo1


you have a logic, but still, 24000 more is too much. I would say okay to five thousand. tops. if you go collecting five thousand signatures, then you are serious. but then raise the other two by three thousand too.
can this be called as a some sort of proof of the elite setting up two party systems to influence the politics of a nation more easily? seems about just right.

reply to post by Domo1


Being a Dick Tom here in PA I see the logic in your statement, Domo. But that leads to the question: Since the representatives of the two major parties only require 2,000 signatures, what does that signify??

Is there some sort of vetting process that raises their eligibility to govern thereby lowering the need of the general public consent as qualified to govern?

My contention is this - why do we only elect (for the most part, that is) lawyers? Professional loophole locaters and circumventors who haven't the slightest clue of what they are enacting. Shouldn't we be electing Civil Engineers who know about infrastructure? Doctors and nurses who understand healthcare? Aviation and transportation experts who can evaluate transportation issues??

Lastly, I get over the top pissed every election cycle because it seems to me, average middle class working dingbat, that these positions are nothing but rewards for the criminal, untrustwothy chocolate starfish (read: sphincter) that spends the most money during the campaign!

reply to post by StupidShouldHurt


You make a good point. I am rather tired of the D vs R nonsense personally. That being said, what makes a legitimate political party? Do we want the KKK running on an anti 'color' platform? Video game nerds trying to be funny with their own candidates? I think there should be a difference in the amount of signatures needed when a non traditional party wishes to enter the game.

Now that being said, I would really like to see more of the green party and libertarian folk on ballots.

I guess my point is that I understand the restriction, dislike it if a legitimate candidate is running, but endorse if a bunch of idiots want to try and vote in a guy in a Barney costume.

OP I am SO irritated with you right now. I'm going to think on this long and hard. It's 5 AM, I didn't sleep last night or the night before and when this caffeine and bath salt medley wears off I'm going to be gone for awhile. Domo needs to spoon his dog and fight pillows in his sleep!

This is a very interesting question though, at what point do we legitimize candidates? I'm really interested in public campaign financing, and I find the same issue. Who the hell are you supposed to give the money to?

Really good thread OP. I hope it's well attended by folks brighter than myself. So basically I hope it's well attended. I'm not the shiniest penny.

Originally posted by PaTommyJ
untrustwothy chocolate starfish (read: sphincter) that spends the most money during the campaign!

I wish I could give you 10 stars for that, but alas, I can only give one. If it's any consolation, my eyes are watering and I can't stop laughing.

reply to post by StupidShouldHurt


Glad to be of some consolation on a really good yet iritating find, friend. The whole process needs revamping, and I want to thank you for that tidbit of ridiculosity in my state.

BTW - I S&F'd the thread so we can see what other "shinier pennies" have to offer (good anaolgy, Domo!!)

p.s. #2- your avatar makes me laugh ito the point of tears as well!!

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by StupidShouldHurt

 

You make a good point. I am rather tired of the D vs R nonsense personally. That being said, what makes a legitimate political party? Do we want the KKK running on an anti 'color' platform? Video game nerds trying to be funny with their own candidates? I think there should be a difference in the amount of signatures needed when a non traditional party wishes to enter the game.

Now that being said, I would really like to see more of the green party and libertarian folk on ballots.

I guess my point is that I understand the restriction, dislike it if a legitimate candidate is running, but endorse if a bunch of idiots want to try and vote in a guy in a Barney costume.

OP I am SO irritated with you right now. I'm going to think on this long and hard. It's 5 AM, I didn't sleep last night or the night before and when this caffeine and bath salt medley wears off I'm going to be gone for awhile. Domo needs to spoon his dog and fight pillows in his sleep!

This is a very interesting question though, at what point do we legitimize candidates? I'm really interested in public campaign financing, and I find the same issue. Who the hell are you supposed to give the money to?

Really good thread OP. I hope it's well attended by folks brighter than myself. So basically I hope it's well attended. I'm not the shiniest penny.

I understand what you're saying, about not letting every tom dick and harry get on the ballot. BUT, that being said, I still think it's much, much harder to get 2,000 signatures for a political candidate than it is for 2,000 signatures for the local school board meeting to put up new fences for the softball team. People are much less apt to sign something when it comes to politics.

reply to post by PaTommyJ

that these positions are nothing but rewards for the criminal, untrustwothy chocolate starfish (read: sphincter)

You disgust me Sir or Madam. I can't believe you have the unmitigated gall to suggest I don't know what a chocolate starfish is.

what does that signify??

We dumb.

Being a Dick Tom here in PA

Read that and in my rather inebriated state thought, 'Heh, wonder if his name is tom.' Saw your name and did a rather awkward dance that my dog was not impressed by.

My contention is this

You should never say this, read Elements of Style.

I realize I went all over the place responding. Now I'm going for the meat. Why do we elect those that are out of touch? Because they have money and are already connected with those in power, who in turn grant them more money and power on the condition of personal favors when they reach office. Simple.

reply to post by PaTommyJ


Thanks for your support. Just out of curiosity, where in PA are you? I'm from Berks by the way.

reply to post by StupidShouldHurt


I hear ya. I agree. I still think if I started knocking on doors the honey coated dulcet tones coming from my throat would sway many a douche to sign my petition. Meow .

I think you have a really good thread here, but I also think if you sat back and built on it you would have something rather amazing. This thread and the issues here are but a bullet point in strongly worded letter about our national political scene.

reply to post by Domo1


Hi Domo, Sorry to hear about your unpopularity complex... I understand what your saying but why should the establishment be held to a lower standard than new wannabe politicians?

In fact since these parties are established and have a vast network of operatives across the state they should be required to produce the same amount or more signatures. This is another way that the "establishment parties" can save resources while other parties not in the mainstream must spend their dollars on a campaign to get signatures.

This is just another barrier that the Ds &Rs put in place to preserve their own power while the use voter registration issues and gerrymandering to divide and already divided electorate because we are easier to control.

If you look at how the voters vote has been diminished through population growth I can see why the Ds and Rs work to keep competition down.

reply to post by StupidShouldHurt


Pike County - NE corner of PA

We be neighbors!!

@Domo:
Apologies for the supposition- I do get a lot of strange looks/replies when using what I consider to be a PC/polite/socially acceptable expression of character.

Great fun to see that look on your dog's face when such uninhibited displays take place, isn't it??

Yes, Tom is correct.

This is an excellent thread therefore I will not stray further. Good fun though...

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

why should the establishment be held to a lower standard than new wannabe politicians?

Good point, but at the same time imagine the mess if anyone with a few thousand signatures could run. Facebook horror.

I am actually rather torn here. I completely understand why people would say the major parties should be required to have the same amount of signatures. At the same time, like I said, imagine if it were dropped down to 2k sigs per candidate or party.

Best bet 26k no matter the party? Probably. It should be equal, but it shouldn't be easily attainable to the point that anyone and everyone has a whack at it.

My dear Sir, I am not actually hurt by my lack of popularity, but I am aware of it. How many U2Us do you get that suggest you do something to your something with a something on a daily basis?

reply to post by PaTommyJ

Great fun to see that look on your dog's face when such uninhibited displays take place, isn't it??

It certainly is! Sometimes my exuberance when doing a funky dance rubs off though and the crazy boy starts tearing around the house at the speed of light, I call it the 'rips'. Of course I get mad and try to catch him while he's in mid air and then can't stop laughing to even yell at him and he gets away with it. His punishment is belly rubs.

reply to post by Domo1


In my not so humble opinion, it should be the same no matter what. Whether it be 2,000 or 200,000. It should be the the same for every party/person. Why should the Repubs/Dems get special treatment? I can't think of many things more un-American than that. It's absolutely ludicrous. It literally sickens me.

Originally posted by StupidShouldHurt

Originally posted by PaTommyJ
untrustwothy chocolate starfish (read: sphincter) that spends the most money during the campaign!

I wish I could give you 10 stars for that, but alas, I can only give one. If it's any consolation, my eyes are watering and I can't stop laughing.

edit on 31-7-2012 by StupidShouldHurt because: (no reason given)

Glad I wasnt the only one.

reply to post by StupidShouldHurt


I actually agree with that. I think the number should prohibit the local kindergarten hamster from getting enough votes to run, but the number for legit candidates should be the same. I think it should be a lot higher than 2k also.

I'm actually now a little pissed about this whole thing. Dems and Republicans should have to get the same numbers as independents. Now the idea that D or R should have to procure MORE votes is just as preposterous as saying they need less. Lets keep it even.

Again, very good thread.

ETA I'm drunk, watch this video

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by StupidShouldHurt

 

I actually agree with that. I think the number should prohibit the local kindergarten hamster from getting enough votes to run, but the number for legit candidates should be the same. I think it should be a lot higher than 2k also.



Sad truth is.. that hampster is prolly better qualified and more trustworthy...IMHO anyway.
Higher than 2K and even across the board should be the requirement for all nominees, alas our "leaders" don't listen to us and they most certainly don't lead, or represent, us...