Illinois LP fights Demopublican election-rigging

[shanek]

There's a law in Illinois that the BoE must certify the names of all candidates to appear on the ballot 67 days before the election. This year, that'll be August 27. However, Bush isn't going to be nominated for president until the Republican National Convention on September 1.

So they're working on a law that would make an exception ONLY FOR BUSH. For the sake of ONE CANDIDATE.

This is preposterous. If the Demopublicans are going to pass restrictive ballot access measures, then they should at least be subject to them themselves. Bush should be eliminated from the ballot, or else (preferably) these restrictions on ballot access should be removed for EVERYONE.

Here's the story:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0405/illinois-ballot-access.html

Illinois election officials should follow state law and prevent President Bush from appearing on the November ballot as the Republican presidential candidate, says Jeff Trigg, executive director of the Illinois Libertarian Party. Trigg is trying to convince officials either to uphold the law by keeping Bush off the ballot, or to eliminate the obstacles for all candidates.

"Republicans wrote these rules and they should live by them," Trigg said. "They made their bed and now they must lie in it by petitioning to get on the ballot, just like they require of us."

Current law requires the Illinois Board of Elections to certify the names that will appear on the general election ballot 67 days before the election. This year that deadline is Aug. 27.

But Bush will not be nominated until Sept. 1, when the GOP holds its national convention in New York City. Therefore, his name cannot legally appear on the ballot as a Republican unless the law is changed, Trigg points out.

The proper solution, he says, is for the board to insist that Bush's name appear as an independent -- as the law allows -- or to ease ballot access for all political parties, not just the Republicans.

Instead Republicans and Democrats are collaborating to enact a new law that would carve out an exception only for Bush, which is "nothing les than favoritism and a mockery of the principles of democracy," Trigg said. On March 25, the state Senate unanimously approved SB 2123, which would allow only Republicans and Democrats to be nominated after the deadline, while leaving the requirements the same for all other candidates.

The Illinois LP responded by holding a press conference on March 30 at which they demanded that the Illinois House refuse to pass the bill and called on Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, to veto the measure if it was approved by the legislators.

"The Senate bill doesn't change the deadline; it just lets them ignore it for 2004," Trigg said.

Since Republicans knew about the deadline in Illinois before they set their convention date, they could have simply held their convention before the August 27 deadline, Trigg pointed out.

But instead they "deliberately ignored the rule of law and arrogantly expected the law to be changed just for them," he said.

And before you think this is just an isolated incident:

In 1998, then-Secretary of State George Ryan, who was running for governor, put his state employees to work challenging petitions collected by Libertarians, and succeeded in knocking seven Libertarians -- including LP gubernatorial candidate Jim Tobin -- off the ballot. Ryan won the election by only a 4 percent margin.

In the ensuing scandal, Ryan was indicted for improper use of state resources.

And there are other restrictions as well:

For example, in the race for U.S. House District 1, the Republicans need 196 signatures to get on the ballot, while "new parties" and independents need 9,793 signatures.

State law will also force the Libertarian Party to collect about 50,000 petition signatures in 90 days just to run its presidential and U.S. Senate candidates, making Illinois's restrictive ballot access one of the most arduous in the nation, Trigg said.

In neighboring states such as Missouri and Wisconsin, gathering just 10,000 signatures would allow a political party to run for every partisan office in the state -- so the LP's request is more than reasonable, Trigg said.

"In fact, with two-thirds of all General Assembly races unopposed in 2004, Illinois should be copying those states' election laws so more voters in Illinois will actually have a choice on the ballot," he added.

"This whole episode shows that Republicans will even break the law in order to remove us from the ballot. Now it's time to insist that they live by the laws they create -- without giving themselves special rights."

 

[Tmy]

Your right. The 2 part system has watered down democracy. If you look at any level of govt you find the whole thing is run by a handful of people. Even if newcomers get elected they are frozen out ofthey dont play the party game.

I think we should dump party designations from the ballot.

 

[shanek]

I think we should dump party designations from the ballot.

I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't suppose anyone in the RNC has considered just nominating GWB today and using the money that would have been spent on a nominating convention as a donation to 9/11 victim families or towards a 9/11 memorial or to families of soldiers killed in Iraq or anything like that.

I think we should dump party designations from the ballot.

I don't think my ears could handle the awful noise raised by the braying donkeys and bellowing elephants as they wailed against the idea. You might get a higher level of acceptance if you suggested that we eat babies.

 

[Dancing David]

Ah the ways of the Illinois legislature always opaque at best and corrupt at the norm and silly at worst.

Well we pass all sorts of laws to allow special intrests to brak our laws, I don't see that this makes a difference.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Let's not forget that the Libertarian Party would do exactly the same thing if the roles were reversed. You can take that to the bank.

 

[WildCat]

Illinois is the poster child for the failures of the 2 party system. Both major parties work together to enrich their friends and campaign contributors and screw the average citizen.

BTW, in Chicago you need 50,000 signatures to get on the mayoral ballot. New York City - more than 3 times as big - requires only 5,000. We don't have a mayor, we have an emperor for life. And he can't be voted out.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Kinda sounds like the Bruce Cockburn song: They Call It Democary....

Charlie (loving in a dangerous time) Monoxide

 

[The idea]

I think we should dump party designations from the ballot.

Are you sure that you want to jump from the frying pan of party politics to the fire of individual personalities? Shall we dump debates and replace them with a swimsuit competition?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Your right. The 2 part system has watered down democracy. If you look at any level of govt you find the whole thing is run by a handful of people. Even if newcomers get elected they are frozen out ofthey dont play the party game.

I think we should dump party designations from the ballot.

The founding fathers didn't like the whole idea of political parties at all. This sort of thing is one of the reasons why.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Let's not forget that the Libertarian Party would do exactly the same thing if the roles were reversed. You can take that to the bank.

This is sort of off topic but it has always represented a catch-22 for me. I usually vote 3rd party. Heaven help me, I even voted for Perot, even though I knew he was a few sandwiches short of a picnic, for no reason other than to help a 3rd party candidate make a strong showing and thus encourage future 3rd party candidates.

When I think about it though, I wonder if it would really make a difference. My thought is this. I think third party candidates are more principled because no one joins (for example) the Libertarian party thinking "THIS is my ticket to political power!", they join because they honestly believe in the parties ideals. People who are only interested in their own gain will be drawn to the two major parties, in all likelihood. However, the cynic in me tells me that would change the minute a 3rd party became a major force. I think that just as soon as a third party becomes a major force, it would become as corrupt and rotten as the big two.

It's a catch-22 and I see no way around it.

 

[DavidJames]

I think third party candidates are more principled because no one joins (for example) the Libertarian party thinking "THIS is my ticket to political power!",

I have my doubts about this. I think one could argue that third parties might attract more "power crazed" candidates due to the "big fish in a small pond syndrome". Much less competition to have your voice heard and ability to wield influence.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I have my doubts about this. I think one could argue that third parties might attract more "power crazed" candidates due to the "big fish in a small pond syndrome". Much less competition to have your voice heard and ability to wield influence.

Perhaps. It would definately increase ones influence WITHIN the party. I think that declaring oneself for a 3rd party drasticly cuts your chances of being elected. That may be changing, but I think it's true for now.

Of course this is all purely my opinion and I freely admit that I may be talking out of my @$$.

 

[Luke T.]

When I think about it though, I wonder if it would really make a difference. My thought is this. I think third party candidates are more principled because no one joins (for example) the Libertarian party thinking "THIS is my ticket to political power!", they join because they honestly believe in the parties ideals.

A fringe nutjob usually fervently believes.

edited to add disclaimer: Not all third party members are fringe nutjobs. But they sure seem to make up a majority of the third parties.

 

[daenku32]

The founding fathers didn't like the whole idea of political parties at all. This sort of thing is one of the reasons why.

True. In the first couple presidential elections the electoral votes did actually get divided and didn't all go to One person per state.

Then years later people realized that people could get elected with less than 50% of electoral votes, so they changed it so that all votes would go to a single person.. And that caused our current 2-party system. They should have used run-off voting instead, but that was understandably hard to accomplish in late 18th, early 19th century.

Any election in which a casted vote is a wasted vote is faulty.

 

[Luke T.]

True. In the first couple presidential elections the electoral votes did actually get divided and didn't all go to One person per state.

Then years later people realized that people could get elected with less than 50% of electoral votes, so they changed it so that all votes would go to a single person.. And that caused our current 2-party system. They should have used run-off voting instead, but that was understandably hard to accomplish in late 18th, early 19th century.

That is not accurate. And you left out an important thing. Under the original system, it was possible, and did happen, that the President would be of one Party and the VP of the opposing Party. There were Parties right out of the gate. Federalist and Anti-Federalist.

edited to add a link.

In 1788, the Electors unanimously chose George Washington as the first President of the United States. Washington was the uniting factor in government, but there developed intense rivalries between his closest advisors. Within Washington's first Cabinet - Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox - Jefferson and Hamilton opposed each other on most issues. Hamilton was part of the Federalist Party, while Jefferson was part of the Democratic-Republican Party, or the Republican Party for short. The first major conflict involved the assumption of Revolutionary War debts. Hamilton wanted to conglmerate state debts and federal debts into one huge national debts. Then, Hamilton proposed the creation of a National Bank to print money, and intended to quickly stabilize the economy. Jefferson, on the other hand, did not agree with Hamilton's idea of nationalizing state matters such as debt and the increase in federal bureaucracy. Jefferson wanted a powerful federal government, but he wished that the federal government interfere as little as necessary in state matters.

Parties were inevitable. People are going to unite together to consolidate power.

 

[shemp]

Let's not forget that the Libertarian Party would do exactly the same thing if the roles were reversed. You can take that to the bank.

WHAT BS! That's like saying the Jews would have gassed the Germans if they had been in power.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Screw the Republicrats! Either make the law applicable to all, or make no law at all.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That is not accurate. And you left out an important thing. Under the original system, it was possible, and did happen, that the President would be of one Party and the VP of the opposing Party. There were Parties right out of the gate. Federalist and Anti-Federalist.

No doubt tht parties DID form right out of the gate, but there were quite afew of the founding fathers who didn't want to see that happen and fought to either prevent it or to reduce the influence of parties should they form. They were afraid (and history ahs borne them out on this point) that political parties would lead to members of those parties using the politcal system to do what is good for the party, not the people as a whole.

That seems to be exactly what has happened too.

 

[daenku32]

That is not accurate. And you left out an important thing. Under the original system, it was possible, and did happen, that the President would be of one Party and the VP of the opposing Party. There were Parties right out of the gate. Federalist and Anti-Federalist.

edited to add a link.

Parties were inevitable. People are going to unite together to consolidate power.

Yes, but the unision shouldn't have to happen until there is only two to pick from. In the current system there will be only 2 to pick from way too early in the process.

My reference to the 'good-ole-days' was in form of how many people were actually running for presidency AND received electoral votes. Just compare 1796 and 1804.

In other words, a third party would have had much better chances in 1796 than in the last 200 year.

 

[Luke T.]

Having more than two parties is not a good thing. People complain that with the electoral system, it is possible for a candidate to win with less than a majority vote. That rarely happens. But with three or more parties, it is guaranteed. You would have legislative gridlock.