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.

(USA Today)   County Clerk rules that eligibility problems with some of the people collecting signatures for his ballot petitions means that Rep John Conyers isn't eligible to have his name on the Dem primary ballot as he runs for his TWENTY-SIXTH term   (onpolitics.usatoday.com) divider line 60
    More: Asinine, Rep John Conyers, Democratic Party, write-in vote, clerk  
•       •       •

1150 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2014 at 2:03 PM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 01:10:32 PM
Tag is both for the Stupid ballot Rules AND the notion of sending the same guy back to congress for 50 freaking years
 
2014-05-06 01:24:56 PM

Magorn: Tag is both for the Stupid ballot Rules AND the notion of sending the same guy back to congress for 50 freaking years


He is Republican, most likely a fundie, and a term and the minute is the same in the eyes of the Lord.

/off to the gym
 
2014-05-06 01:46:27 PM
If you can't beat em, rig the rules so they can't run
 
2014-05-06 01:48:34 PM

K3rmy: Magorn: Tag is both for the Stupid ballot Rules AND the notion of sending the same guy back to congress for 50 freaking years

He is Republican, most likely a fundie, and a term and the minute is the same in the eyes of the Lord.

/off to the gym



i.neoseeker.com
 
2014-05-06 02:00:04 PM

K3rmy: Magorn: Tag is both for the Stupid ballot Rules AND the notion of sending the same guy back to congress for 50 freaking years

He is Republican, most likely a fundie, and a term and the minute is the same in the eyes of the Lord.

/off to the gym


Are you perhaps thinking of John Cornyn?
 
2014-05-06 02:03:53 PM
Dammit - I did not even read the headline.

Fine.  He is probably a devil worshipping pagan who was vaccinated as a child and thus now has autism so a minute and a term are the same to him as he is counting to potato.

/still off to the gym in twenty six terms
 
2014-05-06 02:10:24 PM
Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett

Oh Cathy, I hope you weren't enjoying your quiet, normal life.
 
2014-05-06 02:11:19 PM
Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.
 
2014-05-06 02:12:15 PM

Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.


Why?
 
2014-05-06 02:14:08 PM
"We are prepared to put forward evidence and testimony before the Wayne County Clerk's office and the Michigan secretary of State to verify their registration status," Pirich said about the signature collectors. "It must be made clear that any registration deficiency is not the fault of the individuals; the fault lies with the Detroit City Clerk's office and their compliance with the lawConyers staff for entering just enough ballots that a trivial failure sinks the chance to be on the ballot."
 
2014-05-06 02:17:20 PM

Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.


Agreed. You're just holding a clipboard, not voting for the guy. I guess it could be some weird Michigan rule though.

//worked on campaigns as a 17-year-old volunteer and in districts I didn't live in
//too busy monitoring the polls on Primary Day anyway.
 
2014-05-06 02:17:21 PM

Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.


Why do you think that Rep. Conyers' constituents should be legally barred from electing the representative of their choice? What would this help, other than the icky feeling you get when you think that someone else's Congressman has been in office too long?
 
2014-05-06 02:17:59 PM

max_pooper: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Why?


Because apparently he thinks there will be less corruption in the halls of Congress if the representatives know that they'll be looking for new employment is the relatively near future.

"Gee Congressman Schmuckatelly, Mom & Pop Big Oil sure would like your support on this bill.  And while we can't donate money to your re-election campaign due to term limits, we can say that if the bill is passed and the project goes through we'll need a vice-president of something-or-other in your district as a liaison"
 
2014-05-06 02:20:49 PM

Arkanaut: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Agreed. You're just holding a clipboard, not voting for the guy. I guess it could be some weird Michigan rule though.

//worked on campaigns as a 17-year-old volunteer and in districts I didn't live in
//too busy monitoring the polls on Primary Day anyway.


Followup: apparent it is a weird Michigan thing:

http://www.freep.com/article/20140502/NEWS06/305020117/John-Conyers- Ca thy-Garrett

"By law, Daniel Pennington and Tiara Willis Pittman should have been registered voters when they gathered the ballot signatures."

Still stupid.
 
2014-05-06 02:25:30 PM

qorkfiend: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Why do you think that Rep. Conyers' constituents should be legally barred from electing the representative of their choice? What would this help, other than the icky feeling you get when you think that someone else's Congressman has been in office too long?


I've never understood people supporting Term Limits, no matter the office. If the country collectively wanted to voted Bush in for a 3rd term, I'd be extraordinarily pissed, but it should be our right as Americans to make the same mistake over and over again.

And I mean that without sarcasm. I'm opposed to the idea of term limits in the same way I roll my eyes at people talking about "political dynasties". Let the people vote for anyone that fits the minimum requirements of the office (age/citizenship).
 
2014-05-06 02:27:05 PM
How TFA headline looks to me:

i320.photobucket.com

It all makes sense now.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-06 02:27:10 PM
Ballot Access News used to run stories on laws like this governing who could collect signatures. They are, or used to be, fairly common. Some of them faced legal challenges.

In Massachusetts we have a rule that a signature sheet for a voter initiative is invalidated by any stray mark. If you scratch a corner to test your pen, all signatures on the page are invalidated.
 
2014-05-06 02:27:45 PM

Arkanaut: Arkanaut: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Agreed. You're just holding a clipboard, not voting for the guy. I guess it could be some weird Michigan rule though.

//worked on campaigns as a 17-year-old volunteer and in districts I didn't live in
//too busy monitoring the polls on Primary Day anyway.

Followup: apparent it is a weird Michigan thing:

http://www.freep.com/article/20140502/NEWS06/305020117/John-Conyers- Ca thy-Garrett

"By law, Daniel Pennington and Tiara Willis Pittman should have been registered voters when they gathered the ballot signatures."

Still stupid.


No, stupid would be a campaign manager not knowing the law and not telling people they had to be registered to even gather signatures.

Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)
 
2014-05-06 02:32:04 PM

ZAZ: Ballot Access News used to run stories on laws like this governing who could collect signatures. They are, or used to be, fairly common. Some of them faced legal challenges.

In Massachusetts we have a rule that a signature sheet for a voter initiative is invalidated by any stray mark. If you scratch a corner to test your pen, all signatures on the page are invalidated.


I know it is SOP in my state (IL) to turn in 20-30% more signatures you need because it is a given that any opposition will question a number of your signatures and the collectors.
 
2014-05-06 02:42:30 PM
Term Limits- Twelve years life time total for serving in congress.
 
2014-05-06 02:42:57 PM
Good, now can we do this here in Utah and get rid of farking Whorrin' Orrin? Seriously, this dude ran on a PLATFORM of term limits, and now he's been in office almost 40 farking years. In 2011, he wrote a letter to a constituent saying that he didn't think term limits were such hot stuff, because the people kept electing him, so it is their "will"...

So just send that County Clerk over here when you folks are done, 'K?
 
2014-05-06 02:43:46 PM
I doubt this will make it past the first court challenge...nothing to see here other than state reps can stay in office way too long.
 
2014-05-06 02:45:39 PM

cretinbob: K3rmy: Magorn: Tag is both for the Stupid ballot Rules AND the notion of sending the same guy back to congress for 50 freaking years

He is Republican, most likely a fundie, and a term and the minute is the same in the eyes of the Lord.

/off to the gym


[i.neoseeker.com image 300x393]


Is that lolwut? Never seen that image.
 
2014-05-06 02:47:43 PM

hasty ambush: Term Limits- Twelve years life time total for serving in congress.


Why? Contrary to popular belief, "long-serving legislators" and "legislators with experience" are NOT problems.
 
2014-05-06 02:55:30 PM
Forget term limits.  Make it go the other way.  The full other way.  Game of thrones style.

You get elected to national office you join the Nation's Watch.  For life.  No heirs, no family, no holding property or businesses.  You are now a servant to the state and only the state.

And when you get voted out, you go on public assistance (the one everyone else is on) until you get voted back in to something.

Would maybe cut down on power hungry assholes.
 
2014-05-06 02:56:18 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett

Oh Cathy, I hope you weren't enjoying your quiet, normal life.


When confronted by reporters, she could only respond with, "ACK!!!"

Zmog: How TFA headline looks to me:

[i320.photobucket.com image 850x258]

It all makes sense now.


Great.  Cthulhu cultists are writing our headlines now.
 
2014-05-06 03:07:55 PM
I suspect that people who advocate for term limits but AGAINST campaign finance reform fall under the "Really really don't get it" category.
 
2014-05-06 03:09:08 PM

hasty ambush: Term Limits- Twelve years life time total for serving in congress.


Right, because term limits have worked so well in California. Just turn the whole place over to the staffers and the lobbyists, why don't we?
 
2014-05-06 03:45:45 PM

LibertyHiller: Arkanaut: Arkanaut: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Agreed. You're just holding a clipboard, not voting for the guy. I guess it could be some weird Michigan rule though.

//worked on campaigns as a 17-year-old volunteer and in districts I didn't live in
//too busy monitoring the polls on Primary Day anyway.

Followup: apparent it is a weird Michigan thing:

http://www.freep.com/article/20140502/NEWS06/305020117/John-Conyers- Ca thy-Garrett

"By law, Daniel Pennington and Tiara Willis Pittman should have been registered voters when they gathered the ballot signatures."

Still stupid.

No, stupid would be a campaign manager not knowing the law and not telling people they had to be registered to even gather signatures.

Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)


Why is it relevnt who holds a clipboard. The only thing that should matter are the people that sign.
 
2014-05-06 03:50:27 PM

LibertyHiller: Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)


Because as long as the people actually signing are voters, or even just legal residents, why the fark should it matter who's holding the clipboard?

This excludes the 16 year old kid who lives in the district and wants to get involved with his or her community but isn't allowed to vote yet being able to help out. This excludes the recent immigrant who wants to help make his or her community a better place. Don't know what Michigan law is on felon voting, but it may exclude people who have done their time and are trying to find their way back into society.

Seriously, there is absolutely no farking purpose to that law other than to make it harder to get access to the ballot. It's antidemocratic in the purest form. While the campaign manager was an idiot for allowing this to happen, it's not a good law and is probably vulnerable to a legal challenge.
 
2014-05-06 03:51:45 PM

ZAZ: Ballot Access News used to run stories on laws like this governing who could collect signatures. They are, or used to be, fairly common. Some of them faced legal challenges.

In Massachusetts we have a rule that a signature sheet for a voter initiative is invalidated by any stray mark. If you scratch a corner to test your pen, all signatures on the page are invalidated.


That guy was (is?) awesome. I did a ballot access campaign in 2004 across several states, and he was an invaluable resource.

At that time the laws in NC were the worst as far as the number of signatures required ( you needed almost as many signatures as the typical voter turnout in a primary), but the most onerous regulations were in SC.

The pages had to be in alphabetical order by county, and numbered. Because of the way the statute was written, any page out of place alphabetically or numbered incorrectly could invalidate tons of signatures (eg. if page 316 ended up where 216 should be, then 217-315 would be ignored). This means you have to get all the petitions together in one place and organize all that paper meticulously before turning it in. The campaign also wanted copies because lots of signatures had been "lost" by the state BOE staff in Texas.

We were collecting all over the state right up until the day before the deadline and our teams covered multiple counties.  Everyone met at an all night kinkos in Columbia and we basically just took it over, spreading out over every table. Luckily, though the pages had to be numbered correctly, the statute did allow for missing numbers (eg. a missing page), so I used an old basic programming trick and numbered the sheets as multiples of ten (10,20,30, etc.). Then when we found stray sheets from some county that had already been numbered, we could slip it in to one of the unused numbers. We also reduced the chance of the kind of apocalyptic error described above.

Anyway, the signatures were due at noon and, after getting lost trying to find the place, we turned them in at 11:50.

Unfortunately the validation rate was pathetic and we ended up a little bit short.

/thank you, I think its a pretty cool story too
 
2014-05-06 03:52:45 PM

K3rmy: Magorn: Tag is both for the Stupid ballot Rules AND the notion of sending the same guy back to congress for 50 freaking years

He is Republican, most likely a fundie, and a term and the minute is the same in the eyes of the Lord.

/off to the gym


No, Dem and he's been around way too long.
 
2014-05-06 03:53:14 PM
He's not big on reading things
 
2014-05-06 03:54:33 PM
I agree with the many others in this post who have said Term Limits are useless.

You want to change the system?  Make running for office cost less money.  That would solve 90% of the problems our current government faces (corruption, special interest influence, rich having too much power, etc.)
 
2014-05-06 03:58:41 PM

cptjeff: the campaign manager was an idiot for allowing this to happen,


Most certainly this...

cptjeff: is probably vulnerable to a legal challenge.


and maybe this.

I don't know if petition requirements have ever been tested in court. It's possible they'd get tossed as an extraconstitutional requirement to hold for office.
 
2014-05-06 04:14:22 PM

LibertyHiller: Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)


I just don't see any reason for it, since the signature collector isn't influencing the outcome of the election (except when they're not eligible, apparently). All you're doing is standing on a street asking people if they're registered with the right party, and if so, handing them a flyer and asking them for a signature.

My perspective might be biased by living in big cities. In cities where there might be several congressional districts (NYC has I think 12), it might be confusing which district someone is even living in (esp. with heavily gerrymandered districts), it's administratively a lot easier to not have to keep track of where everybody's staff lives. And the purpose of such a law (which I presume is to make sure that only the "community" is represented) is also diluted by the fact that a significant portion of the residents of the district probably work in different districts anyway, thus belonging to multiple "communities". Plus having such a restriction could limit a smaller candidate's chances at getting on the ballot.

What's the problem with "paid signature gatherers"? It's not easy work - simple, sure, but not easy. I'd hope those people are getting paid, at least with an expensed lunch or something.
 
2014-05-06 04:16:48 PM

dywed88: LibertyHiller: Arkanaut: Arkanaut: Moosecakes: Why should it matter if the petitioners are registered voters, so long as the signees are? What a stupid rule. And yes, it's totally stupid that this guy has been in Congress for this long. There really needs to be term limits in Congress.

Agreed. You're just holding a clipboard, not voting for the guy. I guess it could be some weird Michigan rule though.

//worked on campaigns as a 17-year-old volunteer and in districts I didn't live in
//too busy monitoring the polls on Primary Day anyway.

Followup: apparent it is a weird Michigan thing:

http://www.freep.com/article/20140502/NEWS06/305020117/John-Conyers- Ca thy-Garrett

"By law, Daniel Pennington and Tiara Willis Pittman should have been registered voters when they gathered the ballot signatures."

Still stupid.

No, stupid would be a campaign manager not knowing the law and not telling people they had to be registered to even gather signatures.

Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)

Why is it relevnt who holds a clipboard. The only thing that should matter are the people that sign.


Because "who holds the clipboard" determines who signs.

cptjeff: LibertyHiller: Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)

Because as long as the people actually signing are voters, or even just legal residents, why the fark should it matter who's holding the clipboard?

This excludes the 16 year old kid who lives in the district and wants to get involved with his or her community but isn't allowed to vote yet being able to help out. This excludes the recent immigrant who wants to help make his or her community a better place. Don't know what Michigan law is on felon voting, but it may exclude people who have done their time and are trying to find their way back into society.

Seriously, there is absolutely no farking purpose to that law other than to make it harder to get access to the ballot. It's antidemocratic in the purest form. While the campaign manager was an idiot for allowing this to happen, it's not a good law and is probably vulnerable to a legal challenge.


Requiring that someone be a registered voter to circulate a petition is not an unreasonably high threshold; after all, about half the states don't allow referendums or initiated amendments and statutes at all, period, full stop. If you want to call something "antidemocratic in its purest form," that's a far better place to start, perhaps?

As for teenagers/recent immigrants who want to get involved, there's still door-to-door work (flyers, GOTV, etc.) and plenty of that to do, especially when it comes to local campaigns.

Moral of the story: Don't complain about the rules after your signature collectors fark up. If you're a 25-term congresscritter and can't find a competent campaign manager, what does that say about your judgement?
 
2014-05-06 04:22:04 PM

qorkfiend: cptjeff: the campaign manager was an idiot for allowing this to happen,

Most certainly this...

cptjeff: is probably vulnerable to a legal challenge.

and maybe this.

I don't know if petition requirements have ever been tested in court. It's possible they'd get tossed as an extraconstitutional requirement to hold for office.


Mmmmm, perhaps, but it's not a requirement of the candidate, but of those who work on the candidate's behalf. It would all depend on the judge, I imagine.
 
2014-05-06 04:22:16 PM

cretinbob: K3rmy: Magorn: Tag is both for the Stupid ballot Rules AND the notion of sending the same guy back to congress for 50 freaking years

He is Republican, most likely a fundie, and a term and the minute is the same in the eyes of the Lord.

/off to the gym


[i.neoseeker.com image 300x393]



That pear looks delicious.

/or will, in 2.37-2.45 days. Pears have a limited span of yumminess.
 
2014-05-06 04:28:08 PM

LibertyHiller: qorkfiend: cptjeff: the campaign manager was an idiot for allowing this to happen,

Most certainly this...

cptjeff: is probably vulnerable to a legal challenge.

and maybe this.

I don't know if petition requirements have ever been tested in court. It's possible they'd get tossed as an extraconstitutional requirement to hold for office.

Mmmmm, perhaps, but it's not a requirement of the candidate, but of those who work on the candidate's behalf. It would all depend on the judge, I imagine.


The candidate's the one required to get the signatures, yes?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-05-06 04:31:13 PM
Arkanaut: What's the problem with "paid signature gatherers"?

There have been accusations of misconduct in Massachusetts. People claim their signatures ended up on documents they did not intend to sign.
 
2014-05-06 04:32:37 PM

LibertyHiller: Requiring that someone be a registered voter to circulate a petition is not an unreasonably high threshold; after all, about half the states don't allow referendums or initiated amendments and statutes at all, period, full stop. If you want to call something "antidemocratic in its purest form," that's a far better place to start, perhaps?


Exclusionary barriers to the democratic process are incredibly antidemocratic. Period, full stop. Modifying the democratic process itself is less important to me than letting people have access to it. If you can't vote or even hold a clipboard, what use is that referendum option?


LibertyHiller: Because "who holds the clipboard" determines who signs.


Not really. Nobody holding a clipboard can force anyone to sign. All they can do is ask and encourage. Or are you saying attempts to encourage and convince voters are illegitimate in a goddamn election? Are you saying that only registered voters should be allowed to advocate on behalf of candidates? Because the 1st Amendment does not work that way.
 
2014-05-06 04:37:31 PM

Arkanaut: LibertyHiller: Explain why you think it's a stupid law, if you don't mind. (For comparison, my idea of stupid is allowing paid signature gatherers, as California does.)

I just don't see any reason for it, since the signature collector isn't influencing the outcome of the election (except when they're not eligible, apparently). All you're doing is standing on a street asking people if they're registered with the right party, and if so, handing them a flyer and asking them for a signature.

My perspective might be biased by living in big cities. In cities where there might be several congressional districts (NYC has I think 12), it might be confusing which district someone is even living in (esp. with heavily gerrymandered districts), it's administratively a lot easier to not have to keep track of where everybody's staff lives. And the purpose of such a law (which I presume is to make sure that only the "community" is represented) is also diluted by the fact that a significant portion of the residents of the district probably work in different districts anyway, thus belonging to multiple "communities". Plus having such a restriction could limit a smaller candidate's chances at getting on the ballot.

What's the problem with "paid signature gatherers"? It's not easy work - simple, sure, but not easy. I'd hope those people are getting paid, at least with an expensed lunch or something.


Please don't confuse the CA/PA rule of requiring a circulator to reside in the district with the case in TFA, where the circulators weren't registered at all. The signature gatherer is the first step in the election process, so yeah, I want him or her to be a registered voter. (If you won't do that much, why are you out there for Candidate X?)

If you can't convince 1,000 of the voters in an congressional district to support your petition (as in the case we're talking about), you probably don't deserve to be on the ballot in the first place.

As for paid signature gatherers: it's a means to buy your way onto the ballot and I don't care for that one bit, thank you very much.
 
2014-05-06 04:40:13 PM

LibertyHiller: The signature gatherer is the first step in the election process, so yeah, I want him or her to be a registered voter. (If you won't do that much, why are you out there for Candidate X?)


There's plenty of reasons you might not be registered but would want to volunteer for a candidate's campaign. Requiring signature gatherers to be registered voters seems rather...arbitrary. As long as the signatures themselves are valid, what difference does it make?
 
2014-05-06 04:43:31 PM

cptjeff: LibertyHiller: Requiring that someone be a registered voter to circulate a petition is not an unreasonably high threshold; after all, about half the states don't allow referendums or initiated amendments and statutes at all, period, full stop. If you want to call something "antidemocratic in its purest form," that's a far better place to start, perhaps?

Exclusionary barriers to the democratic process ...


Again, the requirement here of 1,000 signatures collected by registered voters to get on the ballot for a seat in Congress is hardly insurmountable. One man's exclusionary barrier is (for now, at least) the law's due diligence.
 
2014-05-06 04:46:28 PM

qorkfiend: LibertyHiller: The signature gatherer is the first step in the election process, so yeah, I want him or her to be a registered voter. (If you won't do that much, why are you out there for Candidate X?)

There's plenty of reasons you might not be registered but would want to volunteer for a candidate's campaign. Requiring signature gatherers to be registered voters seems rather...arbitrary. As long as the signatures themselves are valid, what difference does it make?


It's only arbitrary if you have a problem getting people who aren't convicted felons, noncitizens or children to work for your campaign. As far as I know, that's about as arbitrary as voter registration gets.
 
2014-05-06 04:53:54 PM

LibertyHiller: qorkfiend: LibertyHiller: The signature gatherer is the first step in the election process, so yeah, I want him or her to be a registered voter. (If you won't do that much, why are you out there for Candidate X?)

There's plenty of reasons you might not be registered but would want to volunteer for a candidate's campaign. Requiring signature gatherers to be registered voters seems rather...arbitrary. As long as the signatures themselves are valid, what difference does it make?

It's only arbitrary if you have a problem getting people who aren't convicted felons, noncitizens or children to work for your campaign. As far as I know, that's about as arbitrary as voter registration gets.


No, I mean the requirement that signature gatherers be registered voters serves no purpose.
 
2014-05-06 04:56:23 PM

LibertyHiller: cptjeff: LibertyHiller: Requiring that someone be a registered voter to circulate a petition is not an unreasonably high threshold; after all, about half the states don't allow referendums or initiated amendments and statutes at all, period, full stop. If you want to call something "antidemocratic in its purest form," that's a far better place to start, perhaps?

Exclusionary barriers to the democratic process ...

Again, the requirement here of 1,000 signatures collected by registered voters to get on the ballot for a seat in Congress is hardly insurmountable. One man's exclusionary barrier is (for now, at least) the law's due diligence.


I'm not talking about the signature threshold. I'm talking about the provision that bars anyone but registered voters from holding the goddamned clipboard. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for that law to exist. It's purely exclusionary, with no redeeming traits.
 
2014-05-06 05:07:10 PM
farking retire already.
 
2014-05-06 05:47:37 PM

qorkfiend: No, I mean the requirement that signature gatherers be registered voters serves no purpose.


cptjeff: I'm talking about the provision that bars anyone but registered voters from holding the goddamned clipboard. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for that law to exist. It's purely exclusionary, with no redeeming traits.


No more exclusionary than requiring one to register in order to vote.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report