I’m a fan of open ballot access, but it makes sense to make him settle his legal bills first.
Ralph Nader has jumped into the presidential race, contending that he wants to energize third-party politics.But angry Pennsylvania Democrats say Nader should first settle his legal bills from his last presidential campaign.
And until he does, lawyers from Pittsburgh have persuaded a Washington judge to freeze $61,000 in Nader’s personal bank accounts.
Nevertheless, a defiant Nader said that this year he would once again seek a place on the Pennsylvania ballot, and in an interview he delivered a sharp dig at the state.
this idiot
should not be allowed on the ballot because he literally stiffed the state and used taxpayer dollars in his last fiasco… and had no integrity to pay the tab. Anyone getting past that… that is dumb enough to vote for him, well… there’s not much to say.
Ditto. Idiot.
Nader’s pathetic desire to “energize third party politics” did nothing the last time but help the worst of the two party system, namely, GWB and his GOP enablers.
The only saving grace this time out is that I believe Ralph has lost almost all the support he once had…and so is less likely to actually do any harm. He’ll be a side show, period.
Pilt
Nader, the fool
I was very upset when I heard Nader’s tremendous ego is making him enter the race.Thanks to his last attempt at the presidency, he helped propel Bush into the presidency. What a disaster that has been!If he really cared about this nation, he would not act as a spoiler again when he obviously won’t win but may again skew the results of the election because he selfishly entered the race.
start somewhere
the problem with this country is that there are people calling Nader a fool, further ensuring the domination of this two party political system. I am not a supporter of Nader, but I am a supporter of his actions. If you are not supporting democrats or are not supporting republicans, then you don’t care about this nation? We need more candidates. Get Nader in there, get Bloomberg, get Ron Paul in there.
Nader should have the right to be on the ballot, but
not with forged signatures. Why was there no criminal investigation into this? They prosecute this in other states:
http://www.miamiherald.com/459/story/436561.html
Nader should have been prosecuted
Nader definitely should have been prosecuted for submitting so many faudulent signatures in order to get on the ballot. If he alleges that he did not realize that so many signatures were fraudulent,what does that tell you about his leadership qualities? He was awfully naive and careless or a downright liar!
Blatantly Unfair
Why should it take 50,000 + signatures to get on a statewide ballot in November when it only takes 2,000 signatures to get on the statewide ballot for a major party? This is blatantly unfair an a way that the parties keep their monopoly on power and marginalize any dissenting views.
If two companies had held a duopoly on their market for 130 + years the way that the Democrats and the Republicans have, the Federal Trade Commission would be all over them for anti-trust. This lack of competition in the political sphere is just as bad for the country as the lack of competition in the marketplace would be for two companies. It leads to the same old politics and a lack of innovation, etc. the same as it would in economics.
because it is a procedure well in place....
Those particular formulas are set forth by election vote totals. You have to get a particular percentage of a race to be put on the ballot. And Ralph… the last time we checked “Mickey Mouse” didn’t live in Pennsylvania.
For example, with the Romanelli debacle to get on the ballot… He needed what 90,000 or so and failed to get 90,000 because that was the percentage needed based on the highest previous vote total, which was Bob Casey Jr’s 2005 state treasurer vote total. That’s pretty much the gist of it.
Not the details
I am familiar with the details behind the signature numbers based on vote totals. The question I asked was a more basic question.
SHOUD it take 25+ times as many signatures to get on the ballot as an Independent than as a R or D?
Paul Moore
supporting a stiff who cant
pay a bill ran up w tax payer money… wow, thats really something to be proud of. Its simple pay the tab and try and get on the ballot (which i doubt he even would); or don’t whine when you dont pay the tab.
The two party system, as
The two party system, as everyone knows, is an Anerican institution and has been for years. But it has outlived its usefullness. This decay is evident in the sad split between Americans based soley on party affiliation. It has become difficult, if not impossible at times, to have a civil political discussion without it collapsing into a death match. The culprit is surely the two party system where your choices are my side or your side. The present system will not be replaced anytime soon, but there is change in the air. This is not the Obama form of change or the McCain form of steady as she goes, but a more profound…metamorphosis, if you will, of the old system. It is this need to have a side you can choose when right or left is not good enough. When Liberal or Conservative is not good enough. When I’m right you’re wrong is not good enough. When the only choices are those the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee have chosen for you…are not good enough. It is this need to have a real choice and that need is slowly growing in the heart of American voters.
JP
I don’t think the
I don’t think the two-party system is a dead dog. Indeed, show me a country with a smattering of small parties all struggling to be heard and I’ll show you a great deal of chaos and anarchy.
We don’t necessarily need to have 14 different parties to bring so-called “new ideas” into the mix, because it just doesn’t work like that. Nader’s involvement in the past proves it. Without an actual power base, a third party candidate can’t accomplish anything….other than, perhaps, sour the milk for one of the major parties (Greens, are you happy with GWB?)
I know the idea of these other parties is tempting and I have no problem with them (the more the merrier…) but don’t count on them to change the timbre of our discourse…
Pilt
Pilt, I agree with the
Pilt, I agree with the quagmire of an overload of political parties, a look at Italy verifies that theory, but I’m saying that new ideas or different directions seem to get lost in the Dem / Rep system we are working with today. True that drastic changes will always have a difficult time taking hold, it is more the subtle drifts of misalignment that a 3rd party can bring to the table that are missing in our present setup. Obama’s stand is really very basic and generally main stream, as is McCain’s. I guess it’s the need for more choices, more opportunities that drive my craving for that elusive 3rd party.
JP
3rd party exists only as a novelty
i think a 3rd party… would be a neat thing such as the populist party or something. However, it is on their own to establish the footwork and party infrastructure. Until them, i guess we’re stuck with our “morphism” of Demicans and Republocrats. A little tip for the democratic party… well atleast based on my observation of 2006. The more moderates = more victories. I guess it is just my feeling that moderates fair much better. Progressives are pretty good too.
Increasing competition in politics
We will never have true competition in politics unless there is public groundswell in favor of drastic reforms in the way campaigns are financed and political districts are drawn. The 2010 census is not that far off. In a state that is as purple as Pennsylvania, shouldn’t at least half of U.S. Congressional delegation be Democrats?
atleast half of the
us congressional delegation is already democratic already. I agree with some redistricting.
12 Dems, 7 Repubs
The Congressional delegation is 12 Dems, 7 Repubs, so it’s well over half. But I agree with your assessment that we need publicly-financed elections. Experts predict that it would cost us about $3 billion a year… an amount I imagine we could save in earmarks and more subtle graft when Congresspeople don’t feel beholden to donors.
Money for funding of
Money for funding of elections isn’t the problem. The Federal Government can find the money when it wants to (War in Iraq, anyone?)
The real problem with election reform, as well all know, is that it’s a case of the fox guarding the hen house. An exceedingly small number of politicians would ever have the guts to essentially vote against the special interests (and those include Party insiders) who helped them get elected.
Honestly, despite how well Obama is doing with his heavily tested and polled “change” approach, (and, in his case, it’s a direct response to GWB) I don’t think most people really want anything to change much. Most people, during most years, like the status quo. Change is scary. Change is different. Change is uncertain. One more reason why public funding of elections never moves the needle very much.
To the issue of 3rd parties. Yea, I wish they could work as well, and taking away the obvious funding and organization advantage which the traditional parties have might let some freshness emerge on the political landscape. Maybe. But I heard Nader on Thom Hartmann’s radio show the other day and he sounded to me like a guy who has run out of steam. Indeed, from what I see and hear, none of his “ideas” are all that new or unique.
Pilt
Post new comment