If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Pennsylvania will not let an independent candidate on the ballot because there is already an independent candidate on the ballot and that would be too much independence on the ballot   (reason.com) divider line 48
    More: Stupid, independent political, Pennsylvania, Richard Mourdock, one-party state, pork barrel spending, ballot access, Chaka Fattah, Richard Lugar  
•       •       •

1218 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2012 at 9:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-08 09:24:47 AM  
I'm a member of the Independent Party. We meet at the Church of Atheism on Saturdays to discuss how little we have in common with each other.
 
2012-08-08 09:27:40 AM  
Register as "unaffiliated". Problem solved
 
2012-08-08 09:28:45 AM  
before I click my guess is that reason.com is complaing because it is an independent that would peel voters away from the democratic candidate.. now let's see if I am right.. *clicks link*...

Foster said he suspected that Democratic Party officials and the Fattah campaign were behind a scheme to keep him off the ballot...

Like clockwork.
 
2012-08-08 09:29:16 AM  
Could it be that Independents are notoriously moronic...?

Probably - but remember this is also the state that put voter suppression into law and admitted they did it to give Rmoney a better chance to win the election.

Putting an independent on the ballot would likely siphon possible republican votes away from the GOP candidate, and they can't have that now - because that would give the democrats an advantage.
 
2012-08-08 09:29:21 AM  
So after a frothing rant about Castro and a Democratic party conspiracy as to why this guy didn't make the ballot they acknowledge that the state was simply following the law in the last paragraph?
 
2012-08-08 09:33:28 AM  
Bonus ultra-derp in first sentence:

What's the difference between one party rule and a two party system? One party. Cuba apologists insist their political system is very democratic, with "the people" involved every step of the way. No matter that the Castros regularly hit 99 percent in parliamentary elections. They are the 99 percent after all.
 
2012-08-08 09:35:33 AM  
Has there ever been an independent candidate who wasn't a one-issue show pony, someone who was playing politics, or someone who had no choice?
 
2012-08-08 09:45:07 AM  
Excluding Foster from the ballot was nothing personal, said Department of State spokesman Ron Ruman. "We're just following the law," he said.
The state prohibits nominees of the same party or parties with similar-sounding names to appear on general-election ballots, lest voters become confused.


The only part of that ridiculous pile of shiat that matters. That law seems kind of silly, but it's no conspiracy.
 
2012-08-08 09:47:31 AM  
Nobody challenges the two party system.
 
2012-08-08 09:53:35 AM  
This sounds more like someone banging their head against a technicality.
 
2012-08-08 09:53:52 AM  
We don't have a two party system; we have a one party system pretending to be a two party system.
 
2012-08-08 09:53:52 AM  

Bungles: Has there ever been an independent candidate who wasn't a one-issue show pony, someone who was playing politics, or someone who had no choice?


Because the two-party system is working out so well for us. I have to admit, they've pretty much got a stranglehold on our political system and have most people sold on the notion that it's one party or the other, so they've done very well at taking over the whole system.
 
2012-08-08 09:54:25 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Nobody challenges the two party system.


It's a one party system here in Philadelphia.
 
2012-08-08 09:54:31 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Excluding Foster from the ballot was nothing personal, said Department of State spokesman Ron Ruman. "We're just following the law," he said.
The state prohibits nominees of the same party or parties with similar-sounding names to appear on general-election ballots, lest voters become confused.

The only part of that ridiculous pile of shiat that matters. That law seems kind of silly, but it's no conspiracy.


Well, unless the Ogborn guy really did file to get on the ballot just to throw up a roadblock to Foster getting on. Just because the law says that doesn't mean that the Fattah camp didn't try to use it to stifle competition.
 
2012-08-08 09:55:20 AM  
Remember folks, on the politics tab, the Republicans are responsible for everything... Even when they're not.
 
2012-08-08 09:56:04 AM  
Why doesn't he make up a party?
 
2012-08-08 09:56:17 AM  

Nabb1: Bungles: Has there ever been an independent candidate who wasn't a one-issue show pony, someone who was playing politics, or someone who had no choice?

Because the two-party system is working out so well for us. I have to admit, they've pretty much got a stranglehold on our political system and have most people sold on the notion that it's one party or the other, so they've done very well at taking over the whole system.


And as long as the system is winner-takes-all, two parties is the only stable configuration.
 
2012-08-08 09:56:22 AM  

Mrbogey: Remember folks, on the politics tab, the Republicans are responsible for everything... Even when they're not.


Who's in charge in Pennsylvania right now, and could change these laws if they wanted to?
 
2012-08-08 09:59:29 AM  

DrPainMD: We don't have a two party system; we have a one party system pretending to be a two party system.


To distract us from the Illuminati and Federal Reserve debt slavery, obviously.
 
2012-08-08 10:12:22 AM  
At issue is the use of independent. Foster said he had no affiliation - political or otherwise - with Ogborn, 63, of Roxborough. Foster said he filed as an independent - with an emphatically lowercase i.

Excluding Foster from the ballot was nothing personal, said Department of State spokesman Ron Ruman. "We're just following the law," he said.
The state prohibits nominees of the same party or parties with similar-sounding names to appear on general-election ballots, lest voters become confused.


So stop being butthurt and just refile as 'unaffiliated', 'no party', 'none', 'n/a', '_____', 'go fark yourself' or any of hundreds of other labels you can put down for party affiliation. Seriously, if you can't find your way out of this paper bag, maybe you're just not qualified for an elected position.
 
2012-08-08 10:13:52 AM  
For a long time the country has deteriorated because the two-party system is corrupt. In fact, it's done so well it has managed to normalize - in effect legalize - corruption. Today, most citizens accept corruption as the normal way of doing things, the two-party system is entrenched, and people are ever-more alienated from politics altogether. In fact, there is no real political process in this country.

Modern political discourse focuses on democracy and the relationship between people and politics. It is thought of as the way we "choose government officials and make decisions about public policy". [2]

"We" do not choose government officials, the two parties choose government officials. Average citizens have no voice in the selection of government officials or in the formulation of public policy. There is no longer any relationship between people and politics.

Today the problem is no longer the two-party system itself, it is the people who regularly legitimize it by voting for two-party candidates, thus foolishly perpetuating the illusion of democracy to their own detriment. At this point, anyone who voluntarily votes for any of these pre-selected candidates is to blame for the perpetuation of a system which long ago lost all objective legitimacy.
 
2012-08-08 10:15:53 AM  

Bungles: Has there ever been an independent candidate who wasn't a one-issue show pony, someone who was playing politics, or someone who had no choice?


As opposed to candidates from the major two parties who certainly don't play politics?
 
2012-08-08 10:24:34 AM  

canyoneer: Today the problem is no longer the two-party system itself, it is the people who regularly legitimize it by voting for two-party candidates, thus foolishly perpetuating the illusion of democracy to their own detriment. At this point, anyone who voluntarily votes for any of these pre-selected candidates is to blame for the perpetuation of a system which long ago lost all objective legitimacy.


The trouble is this:

Suppose you have two major party candidates, one of whom is not really great but tolerable, and one of whom is batshiat insane. The election will be a close one. Who can afford to vote for a third party in this situation?
 
2012-08-08 10:24:38 AM  

BunkyBrewman: Marcus Aurelius: Nobody challenges the two party system.

It's a one party system here in Philadelphia.


It's a one party system pretty much everywhere. The districts are rigged that way.
 
2012-08-08 10:26:50 AM  

thurstonxhowell: That law seems kind of silly


No, it seems REALLY silly. But then again, this is Philly. Intelligence is a four letter word there.

\and like everyone else, I say he needs to rename himself as part of the "Fark you Philly, I'm a fourth" Party
 
2012-08-08 10:29:23 AM  

astroman05: Suppose you have two major party candidates, one of whom is not really great but tolerable, and one of whom is batshiat insane. The election will be a close one. Who can afford to vote for a third party in this situation?


When was the last time the election of a supposedly batshiat insane two-party candidate caused any major alteration in government policy?
 
2012-08-08 10:35:40 AM  

canyoneer: astroman05: Suppose you have two major party candidates, one of whom is not really great but tolerable, and one of whom is batshiat insane. The election will be a close one. Who can afford to vote for a third party in this situation?

When was the last time the election of a supposedly batshiat insane two-party candidate caused any major alteration in government policy?


...do you not recall the debt ceiling fiasco, brought about entirely by the newly elected, batshiat insane Tea Party?
 
2012-08-08 10:37:49 AM  

canyoneer: astroman05: Suppose you have two major party candidates, one of whom is not really great but tolerable, and one of whom is batshiat insane. The election will be a close one. Who can afford to vote for a third party in this situation?

When was the last time the election of a supposedly batshiat insane two-party candidate caused any major alteration in government policy?


2000, and again in 2004.
 
2012-08-08 10:41:17 AM  

qorkfiend: canyoneer: astroman05: Suppose you have two major party candidates, one of whom is not really great but tolerable, and one of whom is batshiat insane. The election will be a close one. Who can afford to vote for a third party in this situation?

When was the last time the election of a supposedly batshiat insane two-party candidate caused any major alteration in government policy?

...do you not recall the debt ceiling fiasco, brought about entirely by the newly elected, batshiat insane Tea Party?


Or that little Iraq adventure brought to you by those wacky neo-cons under Bush.

But the poster you responded to is well known for having his own reality.

Of course he doesn't . He is well known for having his own reality.
 
2012-08-08 10:42:31 AM  

Tor_Eckman: qorkfiend: canyoneer: astroman05: Suppose you have two major party candidates, one of whom is not really great but tolerable, and one of whom is batshiat insane. The election will be a close one. Who can afford to vote for a third party in this situation?

When was the last time the election of a supposedly batshiat insane two-party candidate caused any major alteration in government policy?

...do you not recall the debt ceiling fiasco, brought about entirely by the newly elected, batshiat insane Tea Party?

Or that little Iraq adventure brought to you by those wacky neo-cons under Bush.

But the poster you responded to is well known for having his own reality.

Of course he doesn't . He is well known for having his own reality.


Doh!
 
2012-08-08 10:45:31 AM  
Come on, guys: I am sure you can come up with some sort of example of some major alteration in policy.

Oh, never mind: you can't. The debt ceiling fiasco was nothing - a lot of hot hair and political theater which changed nothing. Any policy pursued by GW Bush was either long-standing bipartisan U.S. policy (e.g. Iraq "regime change") or voted for by both parties (e.g. PATRIOT Act). But I know: You WANT TO BELIEVE.
 
2012-08-08 10:47:24 AM  

canyoneer: Come on, guys: I am sure you can come up with some sort of example of some major alteration in policy.

Oh, never mind: you can't. The debt ceiling fiasco was nothing - a lot of hot hair and political theater which changed nothing. Any policy pursued by GW Bush was either long-standing bipartisan U.S. policy (e.g. Iraq "regime change") or voted for by both parties (e.g. PATRIOT Act). But I know: You WANT TO BELIEVE.


Demanding concessions in return for voting to raise the debt ceiling was a fundamental shift in policy that directly resulted in the downgrade of the US credit rating.
 
2012-08-08 10:48:49 AM  

canyoneer: Come on, guys: I am sure you can come up with some sort of example of some major alteration in policy.


there are different tax policy in red states versus blue states, you lose elections to the right you will lose progressive taxation to a more regressive model.
 
2012-08-08 10:50:38 AM  

qorkfiend: Demanding concessions in return for voting to raise the debt ceiling was a fundamental shift in policy that directly resulted in the downgrade of the US credit rating.


The downgrade in the U.S. credit rating happened because the U.S. is bankrupt. Perhaps you haven't noticed.
 
2012-08-08 10:50:43 AM  

qorkfiend: canyoneer: Come on, guys: I am sure you can come up with some sort of example of some major alteration in policy.

Oh, never mind: you can't. The debt ceiling fiasco was nothing - a lot of hot hair and political theater which changed nothing. Any policy pursued by GW Bush was either long-standing bipartisan U.S. policy (e.g. Iraq "regime change") or voted for by both parties (e.g. PATRIOT Act). But I know: You WANT TO BELIEVE.

Demanding concessions in return for voting to raise the debt ceiling was a fundamental shift in policy that directly resulted in the downgrade of the US credit rating.


As was the Bush doctrine of preemptively invading another country because they might some day do something bad to us.

But again, canyoneer is not among those that live in the reality-based community.

He does have some nice desert pics though.
 
2012-08-08 10:54:50 AM  

Tor_Eckman: FILIBUSTER!

 
2012-08-08 10:57:45 AM  

canyoneer: Tor_Eckman: FILIBUSTER!


So...you've been gone for a while.

New meds? I don't think they are doing the trick.
 
2012-08-08 11:06:02 AM  

theknuckler_33: thurstonxhowell: Excluding Foster from the ballot was nothing personal, said Department of State spokesman Ron Ruman. "We're just following the law," he said.
The state prohibits nominees of the same party or parties with similar-sounding names to appear on general-election ballots, lest voters become confused.

The only part of that ridiculous pile of shiat that matters. That law seems kind of silly, but it's no conspiracy.

Well, unless the Ogborn guy really did file to get on the ballot just to throw up a roadblock to Foster getting on. Just because the law says that doesn't mean that the Fattah camp didn't try to use it to stifle competition.


A more likely explanation was that the guy was a doofus who was ignorant of his own state's election laws but now wants to claim a Democratic Party spoiler conspiracy to shut him out of the crazy cat lady vote.
 
2012-08-08 11:21:04 AM  

Nabb1: Bungles: Has there ever been an independent candidate who wasn't a one-issue show pony, someone who was playing politics, or someone who had no choice?

Because the two-party system is working out so well for us. I have to admit, they've pretty much got a stranglehold on our political system and have most people sold on the notion that it's one party or the other, so they've done very well at taking over the whole system.



I'm more familiar with UK politics. "Independent" is usually a big flashing red sign that means even the Monster Raving Loony Party wouldn't have them.
 
2012-08-08 11:40:26 AM  

Tor_Eckman: So...you've been gone for a while.


Here are a couple of major policy changes that happened in the last 20 years: NAFTA/GATT/WTO and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (aka the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999). Both passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, like PATRIOT Act. And for some inscrutable reason, the Democrats when they had the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress, somehow couldn't manage to repeal or alter any of it.

Oh, that's right: FILIBUSTER! FILIBUSTER! RUN AWAY!

But by all means go ahead and keep voting for the status quo, fella.
 
2012-08-08 11:45:11 AM  

canyoneer: qorkfiend: Demanding concessions in return for voting to raise the debt ceiling was a fundamental shift in policy that directly resulted in the downgrade of the US credit rating.

The downgrade in the U.S. credit rating happened because the U.S. is bankrupt. Perhaps you haven't noticed.


Or you could read Moody's statement as to why they downgraded it. Here's a hint, a dysfunctional Government is the key factor, not the debt. Canada had its credit rating downgraded about 20 years ago. You know how we got it raised again very quickly, we raised taxes.
 
2012-08-08 11:53:09 AM  

canyoneer: Tor_Eckman: So...you've been gone for a while.

Here are a couple of major policy changes that happened in the last 20 years: NAFTA/GATT/WTO and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (aka the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999). Both passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, like PATRIOT Act. And for some inscrutable reason, the Democrats when they had the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress, somehow couldn't manage to repeal or alter any of it.

Oh, that's right: FILIBUSTER! FILIBUSTER! RUN AWAY!

But by all means go ahead and keep voting for the status quo, fella.


And you keep spouting nonsense, buddy. Or just post some pics with cactus and sand and such. Those posts were your zenith. Pal.
 
2012-08-08 12:11:50 PM  
Do they also limit the 'No Party Affiliation' candidates to one per race as well.?
 
2012-08-08 12:24:58 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Putting an independent on the ballot would likely siphon possible republican votes away from the GOP candidate, and they can't have that now - because that would give the democrats an advantage.


Fattah's district includes the western part of South Philly (black), West Philly (mostly black), much of North (mostly black) Philly, Germantown (black) and a little bit of the suburbs just across the city line.

There aren't many Republicans in his district.
 
2012-08-08 12:43:42 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Epoch_Zero: Putting an independent on the ballot would likely siphon possible republican votes away from the GOP candidate, and they can't have that now - because that would give the democrats an advantage.

Fattah's district includes the western part of South Philly (black), West Philly (mostly black), much of North (mostly black) Philly, Germantown (black) and a little bit of the suburbs just across the city line.

There aren't many Republicans in his district.


CSB: When I was born in Philadelphia in 1982, I was the first white baby on my block.
 
2012-08-08 12:55:00 PM  

mrshowrules: Or you could read Moody's statement as to why they downgraded it. Here's a hint, a dysfunctional Government is the key factor, not the debt. Canada had its credit rating downgraded about 20 years ago. You know how we got it raised again very quickly, we raised taxes.


Dysfunctional government? You don't say! So, we should just keep voting for the two parties that run this dysfunctional government, don't you think? Have you noticed that both of these parties take their bribes from the same set of people and corporations? Did you notice that the Treasury Department is run by Goldman Sachs, for example? Is any of this sinking in?
 
2012-08-08 02:03:19 PM  

Fart_Machine: So after a frothing rant about Castro and a Democratic party conspiracy as to why this guy didn't make the ballot they acknowledge that the state was simply following the law in the last paragraph?


The law can suppress alternate choices in elections for the sake of keeping incumbents in power. I don't think it's any mystery that existing parties in power intend to stay in power, and can be manipulative with the rules to achieve that goal. From Gerrymandering to even the old practices of Rome, that's the darker side to human nature.

And by the way, a bit hyperbolic are we Fart Machine? That wasn't a "frothing rant," it seemed more like a snarky and clever swipe.
 
2012-08-08 10:34:46 PM  

canyoneer: mrshowrules: Or you could read Moody's statement as to why they downgraded it. Here's a hint, a dysfunctional Government is the key factor, not the debt. Canada had its credit rating downgraded about 20 years ago. You know how we got it raised again very quickly, we raised taxes.

Dysfunctional government? You don't say! So, we should just keep voting for the two parties that run this dysfunctional government, don't you think? Have you noticed that both of these parties take their bribes from the same set of people and corporations? Did you notice that the Treasury Department is run by Goldman Sachs, for example? Is any of this sinking in?


Who are you arguing with? I was correcting your misrepresentation on the credit rating downgrade. As for the solution, how about a more intelligent electorate or perhaps a parliamentary system?
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report