http://www.ncgreenparty.org/SUPREMECOURT.html

Quote :

"Green and Libertarian Parties File Lawsuit for Equitable Ballot Access On September 9, 2010, the North Carolina Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from the North Carolina Green Party and the Libertarian Party of North Carolina at 9:30am, 2 E. Morgan Street, Raleigh 27601. Both parties will make the argument that current ballot access laws deny third parties full rights guaranteed to them by the state constitution. ... Richard Winger, the country's foremost expert on ballot access laws stated, “North Carolina requires 2% of voters in the most recent statewide election to sign petitions for a political party to be listed with candidates on the ballot. The massive turnout of over 4 million voters in 2008 in North Carolina set the requirement for ballot access at 85,379 valid signatures of registered voters.”"

Good luck to them both! I thought that last point about turn out was interesting. An unusual turnout year can really mess with ballot access next time around it seems. (props to the ACLU for their support here too)

9/11/2010 1:27:49 AM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/10/674632/libertarian-for-nc-senate-not.html

Quote :

"RALEIGH, N.C. -- The Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in North Carolina hasn't been invited to two television debates because event organizers say his poll numbers are too low. North Carolina Association of Broadcasters President Tim Morrisey said Friday that Libertarian Michael Beitler had not been invited to the Oct. 11 and Oct. 21 debates because surveys fail to show him with at least 10 percent support. Morrisey said the threshold has been used before."

Such BS. The latest PPP poll from about 10 days ago had it at 43-38-6. Only 4 points shy of the number they picked to excluded other party candidates (possibly after looking at the polls to see where his number was before deciding the cut off).

Quote :

"All three candidates are slated to participate in a TV debate Oct. 13, sponsored by the League of Women Voters."

At least there's that. The League of Women Voters organized a few of the debates during the primary too in conjunction with NBC17 and did them better IMO than others like WRAL which had poorly designed formats, badly worded questions, and had to issue corrections after the fact for misstating things.

9/11/2010 4:23:22 AM

It's such a rigged game. They say they third parties don't have enough support to participate in the process, but if they can't participate, they can't garner the necessary support. The two parties are so worried about competition.

9/11/2010 9:56:43 AM

Well the NC Supreme Court upheld the difficult ballot access rules. Now its up to the legislature if there are to be any changes made.

"NC Supreme Court upholds third-party ballot law"
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/9256843/

In the comments someone posted:

Quote :

"Please contact your Representative to support House Bill 32 or senate bill 225 ( The Electoral Freedom Act of 2011). You can find out what to do by visiting the free the vote coalition http://www.freethevotenc.com/coalition/action.php"

I checked out that link. It was interesting to see the coalition members there are mostly the same groups fighting against the restrictive Photo Voter ID laws (see message_topic.aspx?topic=607966&page=2). I mean I guess it makes sense, if you're fighting for more open access to elections, you should do it on both the voter and candidate side. Maybe the coalition in favor of less restrictive ballot access has a chance though since it has many groups from both the right and the left (if you want to define the political spectrum that narrowly).

3/12/2011 2:25:17 PM

Quote :

"if they can't participate, they can't garner the necessary support"

Take some responsibility for your situation. They don't garner the necessary support because not enough people like their ideas. If they did then the libertarians would have the funding necessary to do more widespread campaigning.

3/12/2011 3:42:24 PM

Quote :

"Take some responsibility for your situation. They don't garner the necessary support because not enough people like their ideas. If they did then the libertarians would have the funding necessary to do more widespread campaigning. "

Or maybe they don't garner support because everyone thinks they will just be throwing their vote away since 3rd parties rarely win.

3/12/2011 3:58:27 PM

Third parties have won many elections, especially state elections, which is what we are talking about.

3/12/2011 4:37:59 PM

Quote :

"It's such a rigged game. They say they third parties don't have enough support to participate in the process, but if they can't participate, they can't garner the necessary support. The two parties are so worried about competition."

bootstraps

3/13/2011 11:33:33 AM

Quote :

"Take some responsibility for your situation. They don't garner the necessary support because not enough people like their ideas. If they did then the libertarians would have the funding necessary to do more widespread campaigning."

Well, most libertarian candidates now realize that it's much easier to just run as a Republican. I'm sure there are also left libertarians that run as Democrats, too. With our plurality, first past the post electoral process, there's not much room for third parties. If we had some sort of proportional representation system, then there would be.

3/13/2011 12:01:23 PM

Quote :

" Take some responsibility for your situation. They don't garner the necessary support because not enough people like their ideas. If they did then the libertarians would have the funding necessary to do more widespread campaigning. "

That is the fucking stupidest reason. Maybe Stalin pulled this one off back in day within the Soviet Union. After all they DID have "elections" in the USSR. Of course the only party on teh ballot was the Boleshivik party since afterall other parties don't garner the necessary support because not enough people like their ideas

Quote :

"With our plurality, first past the post electoral process, there's not much room for third parties"

Hence the problem with our current system of government. We are given "colored" choices, Elect Jackass Liberal Democrat A or Douchebag Conservative Republican B. The people in this country feel like they have power but in reality we are catapulting the same two idea trains back and forth into the whitehouse and up to capital hill.

[Edited on March 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM. Reason : a]

3/14/2011 12:41:40 PM

replace the current voting system with a IRV system. problem solved.

3/14/2011 12:43:40 PM

How we can make america more free by HUR

1.) Require the electoral votes of each state to cast votes as a proportion of the per state popular vote. The popular vote winner gets the "extra" vote created any mathmatical rounding leftovers.

For example NC has 15 electoral college votes. If 2.2 Million vote for Obama in 2012 and 3.4 Million vote for [insert republican candidate] there is a total of 5.6 million popular votes for each elector. Therefore 5.6 Million / 15 equals 373,333 popular votes per elector. Simple division shows that Obama would get 5.89 electors and the republican candidate would get 9.1, however, with popular vote winnder getting the fractional elector Obama would get rounded down to 5 electors and the republican candidate rounded up to 10.

This would give each state more power in each presedential election instead of creating so much attention to so called "swing states." More importantly minority voters within a democrat or GOP stronghold are not effectively disenfranchised.

2.) Eliminate first past the post and other barriers to entry that eliminate the viability of 3rd party candidates. Sure there have a few Jesse Ventura's but in most circumstances the machine is rigged to prevent 3rd party candidate of having a shot at the white house.

Instead of a tyranny of a one party state we have a tyranny of the two party state.

3/14/2011 12:59:53 PM

^I think we should start by freeing you to discuss the details of that grand jury you served on.

Let us know who is preventing you from talking, and we'll call Five on Your Side and do a protest. Maybe get the ABC 11 I-Team Troubleshooters out, too.

3/14/2011 7:55:47 PM

If minor parties aren't allowed to truly participate, a revolution will occur. I predict the two-party system will be overthrown within this decade.

^No one is preventing him from talking, he's just suffering from white guilt. Or maybe he's just a patsy and embarrassed that he was used as a rubber stamp in a crooked justice system.

[Edited on March 14, 2011 at 8:07 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2011 8:05:19 PM

Is there no thread that smc cannot shit on?

3/15/2011 8:55:54 AM

Bridget seems to have a good rub going, thought I'd join in.

3/15/2011 10:39:09 AM

Quote :

"If minor parties aren't allowed to truly participate, a revolution will occur. I predict the two-party system will be overthrown within this decade."

smc, joining us with a post from 1968, 1972, 1980, 1992, 2000, 2011 and obviously considering the clout of George Wallace, Libertarians, Greens, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan...uh...Donald Trump? Jesse Ventura?

3/21/2011 3:47:57 PM

The shit will hit the fan this decade, you can quote me. The little uprisings in the middle east right now will seem tame in comparison when the true depression comes.

3/21/2011 6:02:10 PM

That's a pretty hilarious image, given the demographics of the Tea Party. Shall we call it the Hoveround Revolution?

3/21/2011 6:23:05 PM

It won't be tea party Republicans revolting. It'll be people that don't give a shit about politics but have seen their basic needs become more expensive while their wages never seem to go up (if they can even find employment). We're having deflation though, right?

3/21/2011 6:34:09 PM

Sheesh-- you're still clinging to your hyperinflation doomsday?

3/21/2011 6:40:27 PM

Who said anything about hyperinflation? I'm talking about regular inflation, and wage stagnation, which is exactly what we're seeing right now.

3/21/2011 6:54:35 PM

Woah, I just looked this up for quick reference on something and noticed this:

Quote :

"Classical economics focused on the labour theory of value, which holds that the value of a commodity is equal to the amount of labour required to produce it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

So Classical Economics holds to the same pricing focus as Marxian Economics?

And how is the deflationary pressure of your preferred direction going to do much for pushing wage growth proportional to the cost of goods? I know you guys don't like using "math" to prove these things so I'm confused.

[Edited on March 21, 2011 at 7:04 PM. Reason : x]

3/21/2011 7:03:06 PM

^^ You said things about hyperinflation a couple months ago-- many, many things. As in "INFLATION!!1 AAAAAAAHHH!"

Inflation is blipping just as unemployment is dipping; this makes sense.

3/21/2011 7:51:40 PM

Quote :

"So Classical Economics holds to the same pricing focus as Marxian Economics?"

I suppose. Austrian analysis makes it obsolete.

Quote :

"And how is the deflationary pressure of your preferred direction going to do much for pushing wage growth proportional to the cost of goods? I know you guys don't like using "math" to prove these things so I'm confused. "

No math is necessary. Price deflation means that the currency becomes more valuable. That's a good thing. The cost of goods is going down, wages remain relatively stable but still yield a increasing standard of living. Although you seem to hate the idea of a "hard currency," you accept its premise, if unknowingly: money has to have real value. Whatever money you have, someone, somewhere exchanged it for an actual good or service. It's simply an awful idea to give a government the ability to expand and contract the demand for money on a whim. Even fiat, paper currency, at some point, has to be backed by something real - any inflation that takes place after that is basically theft.

3/22/2011 12:51:05 AM

Bump. Don't want this thread to get so old that it dies.

The Dems wouldn't let third parties play when they were in control.

The GOPs won't let third parties play now that they're in control.

I believe it can't pass the state senate which the GOP controls with a veto-proof majority.

My understanding is that the Libertarians did well enough in a past election to secure automatic ballot access for 2010 and 2012, but after that they go back to having to acquire an obscenely high number of signatures through an expensive collection process, or having to do really well in an election to qualify again. That in itself is a reason to consider voting Libertarian this November. But even so, that's just struggling to keep things going in a broken system, and isn't much of a solution.

Something needs to happen to change the system, but neither major party is willing to let other parties even participate, as they have both proven during their turns in power. I don't know how that kind of change can happen, but I don't want the discussion of such change to die, and this thread was nearing the year-long without a post mark.

1/28/2012 1:24:48 AM

Quote :

"Take some responsibility for your situation. They don't garner the necessary support because not enough people like their ideas. If they did then the libertarians would have the funding necessary to do more widespread campaigning."

So by your implication, the funds for Democrats and Republicans are due to their incredibly popular ideas

1/29/2012 10:29:52 AM