Republicrats and democrats trying to screw third parties

[michaels]

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_946.shtml

Congress tries to keep smaller parties down

On Feb. 1, congressional Democrats led by Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin introduced a bill that, if approved, would end viable third-party competition in races for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill, H.R. 4694, ironically known as the "Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act," would give public funds to candidates for the House and would forbid candidates from taking private funds such as contributions from individual donors.

The bill provides funds only for candidates of the two major parties and would essentially ruin the campaign efforts of independent candidates and those from the smaller parties.

For third-party candidates to be eligible for the same funds that Republicans and Democrats would receive, they would have to obtain petition signatures from a huge number of voters ? a number equal to 20 percent of the votes cast in the prior election in their district.

Some candidates could collect that many signatures, assuming they could hire help.

However, under the proposed legislation, third-party and independent candidates would not be allowed to pay petitioners to collect signatures ? meaning that all such candidates would be forced either to collect all of the signatures themselves or to raise enough volunteers to help with the job.

It's likely that many hopeful candidates would be unable to fund their campaigns under this legislation.

H.R. 4694 is yet another attempt by politicians in office to shut down Libertarian Party candidates and other competitive third-party and independent campaigns.

"The Republican and Democratic parties exist to maintain power for their own benefit," said Shane Cory, chief of staff for the national Libertarian Party.

"American voters are waking up to this reality, and as they do, the two parties are trying everything within their power to shut us down."

 

[3chordcharlie]

"Trying"?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
"Trying"?

That's what I was going to say. In my life I've only ever seen one instance of a viable third party. And it wasn't really a "third party". It was really a billionaire's independent run for president. When Ross Perot decided to quit spending his money on it, it vanished like a fart in the wind.

Third parties have been an impossible battle for a looooong time now.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Yeah this is not new. The two major parties have always made it as difficult as possible for a 3rd party to get in on any national election. I think it is terrible, but expected. Do you honestly think that the two major parties in Congress will make it easy for any 3rd part to share the power?

The problem with most 3rd parties is they usually go too far. Most people in the US can't identify with most of their issues. That and there are still a lot of people in the US that only vote for one party (i.e. straight ticket voting). If these 3rd parties want to actually gain some ground, how about taking the good from each of the two parties and put them into one platform.

 

[Moonbeam]

Other than the fact that the Libertarian party provides a circle jerk for people who are profoundly in love with themselves to squeal about how really important but misunderstood they are, it's pretty much irrelevant to most Americans who see it for what it is.

 

[porcorosso]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Other than the fact that the Libertarian party provides a circle jerk for people who are profoundly in love with themselves to squeal about how really important but misunderstood they are, it's pretty much irrelevant to most Americans who see it for what it is.

Heh. Yeah, but how does that description differentiate the Libertarians from the Democrats and Republicans?

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah this is not new. The two major parties have always made it as difficult as possible for a 3rd party to get in on any national election. I think it is terrible, but expected. Do you honestly think that the two major parties in Congress will make it easy for any 3rd part to share the power?

The problem with most 3rd parties is they usually go too far. Most people in the US can't identify with most of their issues. That and there are still a lot of people in the US that only vote for one party (i.e. straight ticket voting). If these 3rd parties want to actually gain some ground, how about taking the good from each of the two parties and put them into one platform.

I disagree. If third-party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates and given equal airtime, they would be seen as viable, and that is what will force the other parties to play on the same field and discuss issues rather than character.

 

[Worlocked]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Other than the fact that the Libertarian party provides a circle jerk for people who are profoundly in love with themselves to squeal about how really important but misunderstood they are, it's pretty much irrelevant to most Americans who see it for what it is.

for the troll.

 

[dullard]

I'd love to see 5-10 viable parties, because the whole US cannot be divided into just 2 political viewpoints. However, our constitution is written in a way that will always result in only 2 viable parties. Even if one third party suddenly was popular, it'll only eventually push either the Rs or the Ds out entirely.

If you want 3rd parties to have a fighting chance, we need a constitutional change. There is no way in hell that our elected politicians in one of the two parties in power will make that necessary change.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Other than the fact that the Libertarian party provides a circle jerk for people who are profoundly in love with themselves to squeal about how really important but misunderstood they are, it's pretty much irrelevant to most Americans who see it for what it is.

I sudder to see the word "fact" in one of your sentences because with you it tends to be an oxymoron.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
Yeah this is not new. The two major parties have always made it as difficult as possible for a 3rd party to get in on any national election. I think it is terrible, but expected. Do you honestly think that the two major parties in Congress will make it easy for any 3rd part to share the power?

The problem with most 3rd parties is they usually go too far. Most people in the US can't identify with most of their issues. That and there are still a lot of people in the US that only vote for one party (i.e. straight ticket voting). If these 3rd parties want to actually gain some ground, how about taking the good from each of the two parties and put them into one platform.

I disagree. If third-party candidates were allowed to participate in national debates and given equal airtime, they would be seen as viable, and that is what will force the other parties to play on the same field and discuss issues rather than character.

Never happen.

1. Most, if not all, debates take place at a non government funded function which is primarily funded by various special intrest groups. They automatically bar all 3rd parties from even attending, let alone speaking. They get away with it because it's a private function. One time, way back when, an LP candidate managed to get into a debate with some DEM and REP candidates (I think it was for Governor or some other lower level job), and he eloquently trashed all their fake arguments. Haven't seen an LP candidate in a debate since at ANY level.

2. The final debate that does take place, which is a government funded function, illegally blocks 3rd parties from attending or taking part. Last time the LP and Green Party got a Judge to give them notices to serve at the function to allow them to attend. They were ignored and when they crossed the police line to try to serve it they were arrested in such a way that their own people had to pull a CSI to track them down.

 

[Jaskalas]

Government will maintain itself as it intends. A third party is not in their designs for perpetual control and is excluded for those reasons.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Other than the fact that the Libertarian party provides a circle jerk for people who are profoundly in love with themselves to squeal about how really important but misunderstood they are, it's pretty much irrelevant to most Americans who see it for what it is.

I sudder to see the word "fact" in one of your sentences because with you it tends to be an oxymoron.

What facts do you really need? Third parties are excluded because they can be. Why is that, my friend? I say they can be excluded because they have no support, and that they have no support because they are irrelevant to the American people. Why are they irrelevant? I say they are irrelevant because they are irrelevant, they carry no message that anybody gives a crap about or has the slightest faith in. Now all third party nuts must believe, to protect their tender egos, that the it is the American people who are nuts and just don't come on board the third party wagon because they never hear the message. What message? How can the truth be hidden from people who want to know and how can it be given to fools? Third party people are people whose egos require that particular brand of flattery that requires they think of themselves as special, no? Hehe! Third parties are cults for the disaffected.

I'm sure that if there is a third party that has anything important to say to the American people it will find a way to be herd. But a two ring circus is plenty of circus for Americans. Maybe, though, you can work on your act. You didn't even get a cookie.