Skip to main content

The Dems are in the process of tring to pass a bill to limit the participation of third parties in the electoral process

Hi,
   Here's a link to a press release exposing an attempt by the Dems to limit participation in the electoral process. I realize that Atrios, Kos, Randi, and many of you 'Democrats' will have no problem with this, underscoring the fact that, as with the Republicans, your partisanship blinds you to behaviors you rail at in others.

www.gp.org/press/pr_2006_02_09.shtml

p.s. The Democrats invented the process of gerrymandering! They've been quietly doing the same as the Republicans to block Green Party participation since '01.

Originally posted to shifty on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 08:15 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Runoff Voting (none)
    needs to be pushed hard. otherwise Nader'2000 will be how things will workout.
    •  ... with 3rd party runs (none)
    •  Not a problem (none)

      If Nader 2000 is what it takes for voting reform to be a real topic, then I'm prepared to "let" Republicans win from here until the day I die.

      AFAIK, voting is a state issue (although I think federal elections should have federal control), so perhaps after another strong minor party challenge, the Massachusetts's and California's of the country will change their voting procedures.

      I'm still certain that what motivates me
      Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

      by stinerman on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 09:00:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  then thanks for (none)
        blessing us with the current state of affairs.

        Good job.

        •  Odd (none)
          I've voted in exactly 1 Presidential election. I voted for Michael Badnarik in the state of Ohio. I agree. It's my fault.

          I'm still certain that what motivates me
          Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

          by stinerman on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 09:31:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  snark aside (none)
        we must unite first before we differentiate.

        You are suggesting that we divide ourselves further.

        Ain't gonna  work. You may be willing to sacrifice your life and live in a compromised democracy, but most of us aren't willing to follow that nonsensical approach.

        •  Re: snark aside (none)

          The way I see it is that there will be no major push by either the Democrats or the Republicans to change our voting system to something other than first-past-the-post unless a minor party "costs them" dearly in an election (I use the quotes because I don't believe that adding candidates to a ballot changes a person's theoretical vote as much as it gets disaffected voters to the polls). At that point, we'll see a move towards IRV or approval voting.

          What I'd really like to see is all of the minor parties merging to create a single-issue voting reform party, which could possibly garner support from people all over the political spectrum, thereby eliminating the "spoiler effect" meme. A 10% showing for such a party would get one of the majors to listen up.

          I'm still certain that what motivates me
          Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

          by stinerman on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 09:55:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  uh (none)
            unless a minor party "costs them" dearly in an election

            Um, you mean like what happened to the Democrats in 2000?

          •  that's mostly rhetoric (none)
            hasn't enough damage been aleardy done as pointed out by dave above? Have you seen the claimed results follow? Do you know why not?

            That's because you're not addressing the problem at its roots. What folks like you need to do is examine exactly what steps need to be taken in order to enact Runoff voting across the nation and put forth a plan of action; not guided by political gaming, but by principle.

            Then, you may find willing ears, including mine as I support third parties in theory, but am not willing to let one-party rule pervade my lifetime, and hence strongly denounce third party opposition to democrats in the general election.

            It's quite simple for me:

            1. either challenge the democrats in the primary
            2. or come up with a feasible plan for putting runoff voting in place

            Until then, come general election time, barring war-mongers like Lieberman, I will support the left-side candidate that has the best shot of winning and that would be a democrat in most cases.
  •  Shhhhh (none)
    It is party before country for lots of folks here.
    Quit causing trouble.  Step in line.
  •  Anything that limits the Green Party ... (2.50)
    ... gets my vote with enthusiasm. The Greens are directly responsible for the Bush administration, imo. All of their rationalization saying it isn't so can't undo the harm the Greens did to the world in 2000 by pushing their agenda knowing that it would give us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore as president. A pox on the Green Party forever as far as I'm concerned!
    •  agreed (none)
      Before Schumer/Waxman/Emmanuel/Brown fucked the Democrats, Nader and the party he didn't even join fucked the nation and the world. And themselves. Permanently.

      Maybe time to resurrect Barry Commoner's Citizen's Party?

    •  Monica Moorehead (none)

      I still maintain that Monica Moorehead, the Workers World Party candidate, is to blame. She recieved 1,805 votes in Florida, had she not run one can assume most of those votes would have gone to Gore.

      In fact, lets just blame every major screw-up any Democrat has had on someone else. The fact is that Gore was a weak candidate (do recall he couldn't win his home state). It is his fault that he lost and no one else's (barring the questionable results in Florida). If it makes you feel better to blame Nader for trying to get people to vote for him (the Gall!), then so be it. Just remember to forget the massive voter supression and fraud that took place at the hand of Bush et al. Give Bush a free ride; it was Nader's fault.

      I'm still certain that what motivates me
      Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

      by stinerman on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 09:12:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, you bet I do blame Nader ... (3.00)
        ... and all of the Greens who followed him over the cliff. Any fool, except Green fools it seems, could see in 2000 that supporting Nader would hurt Gore. That was too big a chance to take with the alternative to Gore being Bush, not Nader under any circumstances. The Greens exhibited extreme stupidity and lack of regard for reality. So, yes, I do blame the Greens and Nader as much as the Bushies for what has happened to America and the world since the 2000 election. Sorry, you Greens failed all of us when the fate of America hung in the balance, and there is no forgiveness for your political stupidity and fecklessness as far as I'm concerned. Double the pox on your party!
        •  The question still remains (none)

          What about Monica Moorehead?

          I was once a Green, and as of May 2, I'll be nothing (read my bio). Just to let you know, here's who I voted for last presidential election. Had I been eligible to vote in the 2000 election, I would have voted for Nader, but not at the expense of Gore because I never had any intention of ever voting for Gore. I look to vote minor party first unless there is a very good major party candidate to consider (for instance, I'll be voting for Sherrod Brown this year regardless of minor party opposition). Gore was never such a candidate.

          I'm still certain that what motivates me
          Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

          by stinerman on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 09:47:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not for me, it doesn't ... (none)
            Nader and the Greens were the primary cause of the advent of Bush and the radical right. That is the main accomplishment of the Green Party. At least accept the truth and stop living in that third-party fantasy world.
          •  Moorehead had fringe support (none)
            Fringe candidates can count on a small number of supporters who support them and no one else. In every presidential primary, thousands of people vote for Lyndon LaRouche. Could John Edwards or John Kerry or etc have targeted these LaRouche supporters and gotten them to switch? No. They always vote for him went into the booth looking for the LaRouche lever.

            Moorehead's Workers World Party is a fringe group whose 1,804 Florida supporters did not consider voting for another party. However, Ralph Nader was an insurgent left-wing candidate who swelled his vote in Florida from 4,096 in 1996 to 97,488. He did so after a campaign that targeted left-wing, usually-Democratic voters. Exit polls revealed that a plurality of Nader voters would have supported Gore if Nader wasn't in the race or on the ballot. In 2004, Nader's vote in Florida fell by 2/3 to 32,971 The conclusion: Liberal Democratic voters did not consider voting for Moorehead, but thousands of them voted for Nader.

            •  Re: Moorehead had fringe support (none)

              So you're saying that (please correct me if I'm wrong):

              1) Nader should have known better, at the very least trying a "safe-state" strategy.
              2) Liberal Democrats that voted for Nader should have known better.

              I will tenatively accept #1 as being tactically sound, even if I don't agree with it. Position #2 sounds as if any liberal-leaning voter who voted for Nader over Gore simply didn't know what they were doing. It then follows that we should keep minor party candidates off the ballot because the voter who votes for them is too dense to get that their vote, at best is wasted, and at worst ends up with an adverse effect on the overall race.

              I don't have a problem with people criticizing my choice of candidate, but I do have a problem with people trying to limit my choice of candidate in order to steer me to the "correct" choice.

              Calls for Paul Hackett to run as an Independent have gotten replies that he would split the liberal vote, allowing DeWine to win in a landslide. That position basically says that having Hackett in the race allows for people to make the "wrong" choice. Keeping him out will force all liberal voters to vote for Sherrod Brown (the assumed "right choice"). To me, that smacks of some serious elitism and totalitarianism.

              I'm still certain that what motivates me
              Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén

              by stinerman on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 10:31:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  You have not cluie (none)
            what kind of candidate Gore was.  You're too busy being brain washed by the third party rhetoric.
            •  Tea pot meet kettle (none)
              Oh the irony of YOU telling someone they are blinded bty party rhetoric.

              Pathetic.

              You need anger management classes.

              •  troll (none)
                http://www.scamdy.com

                any other democratic activists with cancer you care to harrass and stop their surgery?

                •  What is that link supposed to prove? (none)
                  from the link....

                  Follow up letter to Hopkins Legal Department

                  Hi Dan,

                  Thanks for replying.

                  Briefly I'd like to explain why I called in the first place. Over the
                  past couple of years Andy Stephenson has been involved in a few
                  questionable donation drives that ended rather badly. In the past six
                  months I've received no less than 40 emails from Andy, or one of his
                  agents, soliciting donations for everything from lawyer fees,
                  unemployment relief, to medical tests.

                  This week the request took a rather shocking turn when the pleas for
                  money stated the were to receive cancer treatment.

                  Now if Andy in fact does require this treatment I'm not the type of
                  person that would try and hamper those efforts. However, there have
                  been several claims made that just don't quite add up.

                  As you will see in the links provided it has been made clear that
                  Johns Hopkins is the only hospital that can do the procedure and due
                  to his financial situation he must pay the hospital 25 thousand
                  dollars up front to schedule the surgery. The remaining 25 thousand is
                  apparently due before the surgery or shortly there after. This part is
                  not clear.

                  What I find disturbing is how the five main people collecting the
                  money will drag the good name of Johns Hopkins through the mud in
                  order to get people to feel sorry for Andy and fork over their hard
                  earned money fighting the soulless hospital administration.

                  Several people in the DailyKos links I have provided describe a much
                  different hospital system than the stereotypical impression, one often
                  promoted in the media, that Andy's donation crew repeat in every plea
                  they send out.

                  If Andy can get adequate treatment in his home state of Washington
                  then I think the methods being used to collect the money verge on
                  fraud. But I'm not a lawyer or law enforcement member.

                  To make a short story long. Had Andy said...

                  "I'm very sick, the local cancer hospital says my chances of survival
                  are 50-50 but Johns Hopkins has a treatment that will cost 20 thousand
                  dollars more but increase my odds to 70-30"

                  I think his friends and supporters would still have come up with the money.

                  Instead he has allowed Johns Hopkins to look like a greedy heartless
                  corporation without ever disclosing any alternative options.

                  I'm sure Johns Hopkins fundraises from the progressive community from
                  time to time and I think this kind of behavior hurts the reputation of
                  your institution and may hamper future fundraising efforts.

                  So, that's the reason for my concern. Please see below the links to
                  just some of the sites asking for donations.

                  The DailyKos for example has US senators posting on it and receives
                  half a million hits a day.

                  If I thought these pleas for money were limited to fringe site with
                  not much traffic I might not care. But considering the reach of these
                  sites I had to get in touch.

                  Thank you for your time.

                  Steve

                  Here is a typical comment from the threads.....

                  "I just sent some money. Not much, but I'm amazed that John Hopkins
                  has gotten to the point where they are asking for upfront money on a
                  $50,000 life saving surgery.Goddamn, I'm angry.

                  The notion that John Hopkins is demanding 50% down for life saving
                  surgery makes my fucking blood boil. I wonder how much they charge for
                  the same surgery to a Health Insurance company? Usually hospitals
                  charge the uninsured 2-3x the rate charged insurance companies."


                  http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

                  http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

                  http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  http://www.democracyforwashington.com/

                  http://www.seattlefordean.com/

                  http://shireen.forclark.com/...

                  http://groups.yahoo.com/...

                  http://blog.pdamerica.org/...

                  http://www.votepa.us/

                  http://www.seo-blog.org/...



                  Now go find a single thing that would make me a troll. I'll bet you a GBCW diary you can't.
        •  Hurting Gore was the purpose (none)
          it was personal with Nader.  With his followers it was a matter of being stupid enough to believe Nader and thinking that electing republicans was going to pull the party left.
  •  Fuck the Greens (none)
    The only response a liberal need ever give to a committed Green is "Thanks for George W. Bush."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site