Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Third-Party and Independent Ballot Status

Posted by michael on from the you-have-a-choice dept.

jsrjsr writes "Ballot Access News reports on the number of states where various candidates will be on the ballot. The site also contains a wealth of news about ballot access and other election-related issues."

8 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Politics.Slashdot?? by stevemm81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this what the new Slashdot politics subsite is for? I don't see how this any specific technological issues(e.g, Diebold) that justifies inclusion on the main page.

  2. Re:The system is built for two... by Scoria · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the American presidential election system just doesn't play that way.

    Neither does our corporate media. How much coverage of the "other, less popular" candidates do you see on FOX? If they can successfully perpetuate the belief that only two candidates are viable, then only two candidates will be viable, primarily because many voters incorrectly consider network media to be authoritative and objective. Considering that it is much easier to "influence" two parties as opposed to a much larger number, it is probably in their collective best interest.

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  3. Ballot access laws seem arbitrary enforced by scotay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love how these so-called non-partisan laws are used to challenge 3-parties while the majors get their way. In Illinois these laws state qualifying names must be submitted by August 30. The Republican convention was held in Sept. If these laws were equally applied to the Majors, Dubya would not be on the ballot. I'm glad my Libertarians are on the ballot. They do a pretty good job at getting on all ballots. I don't delude myself that they will win because of it, but I hate when these laws only appear to apply to everyone but democrats and republicans.

  4. electoral-vote.com by nucal · · Score: 5, Informative

    This site is updated daily to give the predicted electoral vote counts - more informative than the overall popular vote totals. He also covers the Senate races and issues related to polling ingeneral. The site does have a somewhat pro-Kerry viewpoint, but it seems like the poll data is non-partisan ...

  5. Re:The system is built for two... by bonkedproducer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A third-party candidate does not have to win to be a strong influence. Don't you see how both the Democrats and Republicans try to play to the middle and focus so strongly on the "swing-voters."

    If a third party was able to capture say 15% of the popular vote it would send a message to the other parties that maybe they need to modify their actions to appeal to those voters if they plan to keep their job next go around.

    This is why voting your conscience is never throwing a vote away.

    --
    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
  6. that's what I have seen.. by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..watching politics for a long time. The media coverage is vital. Whenever third parties and candidates get even close to normal coverage they do quite well. If they got equal coverage I'd bet we'd have huge numbers of third parties in every aspect of government at every level, but they CAN'T get coverage. This lasts a few cycles then a third party guy gets coverage, gets millions of votes. Lather, rinse, repeat. Now I think they realise they should never cover third parties except for negative spin stories, well, like you see here.

    The real biggee I remember was the national debates, you get some guy on there, and you can see third parties are viable. I'd blame the media and it's obvious brainwashing and propoganda efforts more than any other reason for the dominance of the R and D criminal cartel. And calling it a criminal cartel is the truth-they are. At the top, the mass media is owned by a handful of billionaires, so you will only see media reports that perpetuate their own corporate blow dried alleged "candidates". And since the rise of independent press and the internet, they realise their monopoly on info was threatened, so they had to come up with some way to insure the corporate party candidate gets in always, hence blackbox voting.

    People in the USA need to wake up that they live in a dictatorship, that their vote itself comes pre-wasted for them. The only wasted vote are all the ones cast thinking that it will make a difference, because it won't, the corporate party "won" a long time ago and now runs bi annual political melodrama TV fiction shows to keep people amused and faked out.

    I mean, c'mon, two skull and bones white male connected elite globalist millionaires as the "choices"? How blatant does it have to get?

    1. Re:that's what I have seen.. by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I mean, c'mon, two skull and bones white male connected elite globalist millionaires as the "choices"? How blatant does it have to get?

      Indeed. And where does the difference of opinion lie? They bluster and they talk on "major points of difference" but what are they exactly?

      Let's start with the major ones.

      The Republicans are the party of small government and responsible fiscal policy. Really? The current Republican president has grown the government by 7.5% and created the largest budget deficit in history. That's just Bush? Interestingly it was the last Republican presidencies, under Bush Snr. and Reagan that were responsible for the previous record for a budget deficit. Don't tell me the federal government didn't balloon overr that era too (I unfortnately do not have figures for that).

      The Democrats are the party of progressive social policy. That would be why John Kerry doesn't actually support gay marriage then? That would be the Democrats are as supportive of the War on Drugs in its various forms as the Republicans. They are good at scaremongering over social policy - in 2000 we were warned that a vote for Bush would see legal abortions repealed. Bush has had 4 years, and the Republicans have been exceptionally dominant during much of it - is abortion illegal? No.

      And for those Republicans who want the more conservative social policy - has Bush actually done anything about abortion? No, not really. For all his bluster about constituitonal amendments, has Bush actually done anything about gay marriage? No, he supported the single action that was the least likely to succeed, and have any real effect. It was all rhetoric - all for show.

      Okay, so on the major issues, where the parties claim they are different, they turn out to be very similar in practice. Then surely there are plenty of differences on minor issues? Sure, if you dig around you can find plenty of reasons why the Democrats and Republicans differ. If you look at most of the broad issues that matter however, you'll find they agree. They argue so vehemently over the trivialities, they polarise their supporters into an "Us v. Them" mentality so well, that people have come to believe these are the only issues that matter - that they aren't as trivial as they appear.

      Take some time out. Watch a debate between a couple of the major third parties and see all the other important issues that come up - issues that are usually not even discussed by Republicans or Democrats, but when you hear them, truly are worthy of at least having a discussion about. Whether you agree with these candidates or not, they have views that are certainly worthy of being heard and discussed.

      Jedidiah.

      --
      Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
  7. Minnesota. by -kertrats- · · Score: 5, Funny

    I live in Minnesota. Wanna try and convince me that voting for a third part throws away my vote?

    --
    The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.