Lurch Fades [Archive]

Kopji

18th September 2004, 01:48 AM

I just received another weird Republican Party survey, this one by mail. (I had an earlier "push" poll by phone.

News flash: I changed my voter registration to 'Independent' a while ago but apparently the RNC has not got the word yet. So here I am being asked to help set the future direction of the Republican party. Heh heh heh. :D

Anyway, this is supposed to be an official poll of Republicans across the country. Within it are questions like these:

(Form RNC-2004)

"Should small businesses be encouraged to grow and hire more workers?"

and

"Do you support President Bush's initiative to allow private religious and charitable groups to help those in need?

Ok, innocent enough, even "doh". Who would not want to encourage small businesses to grow? And yeah sure, I'm all for allowing private and charitable groups to help those in need.

But along with the survey is another document that explains how to answer the survey questions and what they really mean.

Your answers will represent the views and opinions of all Republican voters in your voting district.

(LOL Yeah, I love that part)

But here's a typical one:

Should we allow religious and charitable groups to do more in reducing poverty so that those in need get the help they need to get back on track? Or should the government be able to continue discriminating against faith-based organizations?

Say what? How can anyone expect to get any meaningful results from a survey when they poison the well like that? Humm, maybe some of the other surveys are this way too.

And btw, about the character and ethics thing: Republicans funding and promoting the Ralph Nader's Ego campaign just to dilute the Democrat vote is unethical, a signature move of a political group that will say anything and do anything to remain in power. Sort of like using a spam service to jam opposition phone lines during a get out the vote effort...

Whyatica

18th September 2004, 06:32 AM

I scribbled all over the donation part of said 'survey'
'YOU OWE US $7,000,000,000,000 (and probably more)'

merphie

18th September 2004, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Kopji
And btw, about the character and ethics thing: Republicans funding and promoting the Ralph Nader's Ego campaign just to dilute the Democrat vote is unethical, a signature move of a political group that will say anything and do anything to remain in power. Sort of like using a spam service to jam opposition phone lines during a get out the vote effort...

How does it go? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Ladewig

18th September 2004, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Patrick
CBS/NYT poll released today: Bush 50%, Lurch 41%. How about that, you liberals? :) Looks like the swifties have tied your guy up in knots! Also, the defection from Lurch reported by Time of the DWBs. AND, AND - the Florida Supreme Court has just ordered that Nader appear on the ballot - just as a Michigan ordered the same there. Things look a little desperate!

Yeah, I guess things are pretty desperate if you are ignoring all other polls and are putting your faith in this CBS poll - in September.

Now where is the derisive snort smiley?

SRW

18th September 2004, 11:32 PM

merphie

19th September 2004, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by SRW
So filing law suits to keep Nader off the ballot is so much more ethical. :rr:

Can they do that? It seems as long as he has satisfied the requirements that he would have to be on the ballot. Unless he didn't provide everything as required, what would they sue over?

SRW

19th September 2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by merphie
Can they do that? It seems as long as he has satisfied the requirements that he would have to be on the ballot. Unless he didn't provide everything as required, what would they sue over?

They have sued already to block Nader, and Nader has sued to get on the ballot and the Republicains have also sued to get nader on the ballot. And yet life goes on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A626-2004Jun23.html

merphie

19th September 2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by SRW
They have sued already to block Nader, and Nader has sued to get on the ballot and the Republicains have also sued to get nader on the ballot. And yet life goes on.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A626-2004Jun23.html

Ok, so it's a sad world. Nothing would surprise me from either side.

Cleon

19th September 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by merphie
Ok, so it's a sad world. Nothing would surprise me from either side.

*shrug* There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that if the Libertarians got as many votes as Nader, the Republicans would be pulling the same crap against Badnarik as the Dems are against Nader. (I imagine shanek would agree, given how much the two parties already control the election.) I'm still inclined to believe Perot's claims of "dirty tricks" by Dole's folks back in 96.

The fact that the "Democratic" Party is conspiring to keep someone off the ballot just so they have a better chance of winning the election should give even the most hardened liberal pause when it comes to voting for those schmucks.

merphie

19th September 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
*shrug* There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that if the Libertarians got as many votes as Nader, the Republicans would be pulling the same crap against Badnarik as the Dems are against Nader. (I imagine shanek would agree, given how much the two parties already control the election.) I'm still inclined to believe Perot's claims of "dirty tricks" by Dole's folks back in 96.

The fact that the "Democratic" Party is conspiring to keep someone off the ballot just so they have a better chance of winning the election should give even the most hardened liberal pause when it comes to voting for those schmucks.

I agree. The problem is then how do we as citizens fix the problem. I could never run for President because I do not have the money. I am registered as independant because I don't believe in either party platform. Most vote with their party line reguardless of whether it is right or wrong.

So even a guy like Perot would never be elected even though he had the money.

Cleon

19th September 2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by merphie
I agree. The problem is then how do we as citizens fix the problem. I could never run for President because I do not have the money. I am registered as independant because I don't believe in either party platform. Most vote with their party line reguardless of whether it is right or wrong.

So even a guy like Perot would never be elected even though he had the money.

I've made a conscious decision never to vote Republicrat; I generally vote Green (whose platform is closer to my own), and where there are no Greens I vote Libertarian (who at least in GA have permanent ballot status). Both of these parties recognize that the duopoly's manipulation of the elections is--at best--undemocratic.

Of course, it's a Catch-22; the Repubicrats don't want to allow third parties to get into office at all, but the only way to vote for democratizing the election process is to vote for those who want to democratize it and against those who manipulate it for their own ends. At worst it's a protest vote.

But I look at it this way; in 2000, 3 million voted for Nader, 500,000 for Buchanan, 400,000 for Browne. Throw in the various other parties and individuals, and it's safe to say that roughly 4 -5 million people voted against the two-party system. If people keep doing that, eventually the duopoly has to pay attention. The Democrats are paying attention by trying to keep Nader off the ballot; my own opinion is that this makes them look really, really bad and eventually it'll bite 'em in the ass. The more they pull this stuff, the more people realize just how f---ed up the electoral system is and how much it needs to be democratized.

merphie

19th September 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
I've made a conscious decision never to vote Republicrat; I generally vote Green (whose platform is closer to my own), and where there are no Greens I vote Libertarian (who at least in GA have permanent ballot status). Both of these parties recognize that the duopoly's manipulation of the elections is--at best--undemocratic.

Of course, it's a Catch-22; the Repubicrats don't want to allow third parties to get into office at all, but the only way to vote for democratizing the election process is to vote for those who want to democratize it and against those who manipulate it for their own ends. At worst it's a protest vote.

But I look at it this way; in 2000, 3 million voted for Nader, 500,000 for Buchanan, 400,000 for Browne. Throw in the various other parties and individuals, and it's safe to say that roughly 4 -5 million people voted against the two-party system. If people keep doing that, eventually the duopoly has to pay attention. The Democrats are paying attention by trying to keep Nader off the ballot; my own opinion is that this makes them look really, really bad and eventually it'll bite 'em in the ass. The more they pull this stuff, the more people realize just how f---ed up the electoral system is and how much it needs to be democratized.

I think Perot was the only one who came close. He had like 11% I think. The problem is voting for a 3rd party means you are almost throwing your vote away because the 3rd party will probably never win in my lifetime. (Which I probably would have done the same except Oklahoma only had the two parties last time.) The problem is the parties who do win the election and the damage they do while in office.

You may have a good point because this election will probably be close. Maybe even closer than last election. If that is the case ever vote will count. I expect we will have lots of suits over the election results. I think it will be beyond Florida as both parties attempt to get as many votes as possible. It would be a sad day in America, but I think there have been plenty of hints that this is something that will happen.

Cleon

19th September 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by merphie
I think Perot was the only one who came close. He had like 11% I think. The problem is voting for a 3rd party means you are almost throwing your vote away because the 3rd party will probably never win in my lifetime. (Which I probably would have done the same except Oklahoma only had the two parties last time.) The problem is the parties who do win the election and the damage they do while in office.

You may have a good point because this election will probably be close. Maybe even closer than last election. If that is the case ever vote will count. I expect we will have lots of suits over the election results. I think it will be beyond Florida as both parties attempt to get as many votes as possible. It would be a sad day in America, but I think there have been plenty of hints that this is something that will happen.

Like I said, at worst it's a protest vote against the duopoly. At best, it costs the Republicrats enough votes to start to listen to what people are saying.

As for winning--well, third parties have won before. The Whigs became a major force. The Republican Party, until Lincoln's victory in 1860, was a third party. I think they have a certain amount of influence now, but it's hard to tell. :p

Which is not to say Nader or Badnarik has a snowball's chance in hell in 2004. But in the words of E.V. Debs, "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it."

merphie

19th September 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
Like I said, at worst it's a protest vote against the duopoly. At best, it costs the Republicrats enough votes to start to listen to what people are saying.

As for winning--well, third parties have won before. The Whigs became a major force. The Republican Party, until Lincoln's victory in 1860, was a third party. I think they have a certain amount of influence now, but it's hard to tell. :p

Which is not to say Nader or Badnarik has a snowball's chance in hell in 2004. But in the words of E.V. Debs, "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it."

Well I was talking in present history. A 3rd party hasn't won in many years.

I see your point.

Patrick

19th September 2004, 03:04 PM

Like I said, at worst it's a protest vote against the duopoly.

Uh, there's no such thing as a "duopoly" - that there are two major parties which usually win all elections is a consequence of the "first-past-gate" electoral system, unlike the party proportional representation true of most parliamentary systems. In our system, minority political viewpoints are represented in the broad sweep of ideology within both parties. It's not about "money" or any sinister plot, but a consequence of the single member district system for congressman, from which follows the electoral college for electing the president -- all of which is specified in the Constitution. If you don't like the currrent system, join with others of similar bent and amend the Constitution.

Cleon

19th September 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Patrick

Uh, there's no such thing as a "duopoly" - that there are two major parties which usually win all elections is a consequence of the "first-past-gate" electoral system, unlike the party proportional representation true of most parliamentary systems.

There's a certain mount of truth in that, but you ignore the fact that the two parties do conspire to make sure third parties have as difficult time as possible. Overly restrictive ballot access laws, "dirty tricks," control over debates, and intertwining themselves with the electoral system itself via primaries all contribute to making sure third parties have as difficult a time as humanly possible. And there's always pressure to vote for the "lesser of two evils" rather than voting your choice.

Some of this would be less of an issue were proportional representation or instant runoff voting in place, but the reality is there is a duopoly and the Republicrats do control the electoral process.

epepke

19th September 2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by merphie
I think Perot was the only one who came close. He had like 11% I think. The problem is voting for a 3rd party means you are almost throwing your vote away because the 3rd party will probably never win in my lifetime.

I voted for Perot (even though I didn't really like him) in the Clinton/Bush race for a very specific reason. I guessed that Clinton was going to win, but I didn't want him to be able to pull some "mandate from the People" drivel.

Patrick

19th September 2004, 08:13 PM

There's a certain mount of truth in that, but you ignore the fact that the two parties do conspire to make sure third parties have as difficult time as possible. Overly restrictive ballot access laws,

The only such laws I know of are ones requiring petitions from 10%, say, of voters. If they can't meet that, how would they win a general election anyway? I think such limits are entirely reasonable, and prevent small groups of crackpots from using the electoral process, and the tax funds that support it, to give them a temporary free forum when they have no expectation of winning an election - but maybe you are referring to something else.

"dirty tricks,"

Like what?

control over debates,

If you mean debates sponsored by private entities, major parties are under no requirement, and shouldn't be, to provide a free forum for anyone else.

and intertwining themselves with the electoral system itself via primaries

not sure what you mean there

All the difficulties you perceive would disappear if a third party gains great strength by virtue of it's perceived connection to the issues as seen by voters - then it displaces one of the major parties, as has happened a few times in american history.

Kopji

19th September 2004, 11:04 PM

So filing law suits to keep Nader off the ballot is so much more ethical. -srw

The state Democratic Party is suing to keep Nader off the ballot because, it argues, the Reform Party is no longer a legitimate national party and that Florida election laws requiring minor candidates to qualify by petition or through a nominating convention weren't followed. -snip-
By JACKIE HALLIFAX
Associated Press Writer
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP)

I don't doubt that the Democrat's motivation is less than altruistic, but Florida does seem like it is not following it's own laws. If they do not like lawsuits they can always change their laws.

I'd be an advocate of a single standard ballot for electing a president. The current system does not seem fair in the sense that each state chooses from different lists of people with widely different eligibility requirements.

The ballot process is unfair to Nader and other minor candidates, and it does not reflect well on either Democrats or Republicans when they claim some kind of high moral ground.

SRW

20th September 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Kopji
I don't doubt that the Democrat's motivation is less than altruistic, but Florida does seem like it is not following it's own laws. If they do not like lawsuits they can always change their laws.

I'd be an advocate of a single standard ballot for electing a president. The current system does not seem fair in the sense that each state chooses from different lists of people with widely different eligibility requirements.

The ballot process is unfair to Nader and other minor candidates, and it does not reflect well on either Democrats or Republicans when they claim some kind of high moral ground.

I was talking about AZ not FL, but its all the same anyway
politics as usial.

BTW the Florida Suprimes are putting Nader on the ballot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The suit, filed in superior court in Maricopa County in Phoenix, charges that, of the 21,512 signatures on Nader's petitions, only 6,045 are valid. State law requires Nader to submit 14,694 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

gnome

20th September 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
There's a certain mount of truth in that, but you ignore the fact that the two parties do conspire to make sure third parties have as difficult time as possible. Overly restrictive ballot access laws, "dirty tricks," control over debates, and intertwining themselves with the electoral system itself via primaries all contribute to making sure third parties have as difficult a time as humanly possible. And there's always pressure to vote for the "lesser of two evils" rather than voting your choice.

Some of this would be less of an issue were proportional representation or instant runoff voting in place, but the reality is there is a duopoly and the Republicrats do control the electoral process.

When I have felt the luxury, I have voted third party myself at times. But the fact of the matter is, the more successful my favored third-party candidate is, the more successful is the major-party candidate that I rate least favorable.

It has been argued that the two major parties are indistinguishable. I used to buy into that. There are several unfortunate areas in which both parties need improvement. But it remains that there are differences enough that I care deeply who becomes president, even between the two major candidates.

I will have a hard time voting third part again unless:

1. The two candidates really ARE nearly identical and I am all but indifferent between them.

2. IRV is instituted, or

3. The major party candidate closest to my views has such a comfortable margin I can afford to split away.

Crossbow

20th September 2004, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Patrick
CBS/NYT poll released today: Bush 50%, Lurch 41%. How about that, you liberals? :) Looks like the swifties have tied your guy up in knots! Also, the defection from Lurch reported by Time of the DWBs. AND, AND - the Florida Supreme Court has just ordered that Nader appear on the ballot - just as a Michigan ordered the same there. Things look a little desperate! :D

Wow oh Wow!

That is such an exciting thought: Bush may just might win the Popular Vote and the Electoral Vote (that would be a nice change). But then again, the only poll that really matters is the one taken on Election Day.

However, he may lose both votes since current polls show the lead Bush had is dissipating and there are those pesky debates coming up (which are not exactly his strong suit).