[thechat] Hiding from Elections Now

[Matt Warden]

Hi Erik,

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:45 AM, erik mattheis <zero at gozz.com> wrote:
> Ha, link please? If these sweet moms were supporting a candidate before that
> candidate formed their own election committee, they would each have had to
> spend over the normal $2,300 before violating any national law. After their
> candidate forms their own election committee, the campaign would be
> responsible for reporting contributions.

It wasn't a candidate. As I said, it was a campaign against an issue
on the ballot. Anyway, here is one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pu6cT6ICQQ

I think you missed the point, anyway. Complicated legislation supports
well-established organizations like your Democratic party who have
lawyers and experience, and it makes it more difficult for new ideas
and grassroots movements to enter into the scene. I did not suggest
there was a conspiracy. I only stated that intentionally or not, that
is the result.

> If there's any other part of your post you'd like specifically addressed,
> can,

No, I would prefer you just dismiss it like it is not worth your time to read.

> but most of the rest of the "bet you didn't know ..." facts are at
> least sort of off ... for instance you imply a Dem/Rep conspiracy by saying
> we've only being given the choice between two established career politicians
> for president the last many elections - not including Romney, Huckabee,
> Howard Dean, Bill Clinton and the many other instances of governors unknown
> outside of their state until they run for President?

You are talking about primaries, with the exception of Clinton. We can
debate why all of the others did not end up with the nomination, but
at the end of the day there are really only two questions: (1) why are
primaries necessary, and (2) do you believe the parties have no
influence over who wins the nomination.

> Also, correct me if I'm
> wrong, but the Committee on Presidential Debates has been using the same
> rules since the inception as per who can participate.

The rules have not changed since the Commission on Presidential
Debates was created in '87. Only candidates receiving a certain
percentage in 5 unofficial polls can debate, even if other candidates
are on enough ballots to win the election. Both heads of the
commission are against including third-party candidates in the
debates, but if a third-party candidate were to get the requisite
percentage in the 5 unofficial polls, then the commission is supposed
to allow the candidate to participate.

We have a system where at the end of the day the people vote for 1 of
2 candidates. The debates are controlled by former heads of the
Republican and Democrat parties, and the 2 candidates are not allowed
to debate in other settings. Most people will admit that they will end
up voting for whom they consider the "lesser of two evils". Thus, it
is perfectly logical for the parties to be concerned about grassroots
movements, because the candidates being elected do not align with the
beliefs and wants of the majority.

The implication of the "lesser of two evils"-voting majority is that
if the people truly had a choice, neither McCain nor Obama would be
elected president. I would love to hear someone explain how they
reconcile that with the idea of a representative democracy.


Thanks,

-- 
Matt Warden
Cincinnati, OH, USA
http://mattwarden.com


This email proudly and graciously contributes to entropy.