Press release from Free and Equal sent to contact.ipr@gmail.com
Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, two of the most outspoken political leaders of our time, don’t agree all that often. But one thing they both understand is that the American political system is rigged against independent and third party candidates.
Restrictive ballot access laws across the nation prevent voters from having a real choice in who they vote for.
And the Democratic and Republican machines intend to keep it that way.
Former Nader campaign manager Theresa Amato’s new book Grand Illusion presents a scathing indictment of the current state of ballot access in America.
Grand Illusion recounts the story of the Democratic Party’s attempt to boot Nader out of the 2004 Presidential election, and offers insight into other recent independent and third party campaigns. Amato also lays out specific reform steps that can be taken to improve the state of ballot access in this country.
In this video, consumer advocate and three-time Presidential candidate Ralph Nader lays the failures of our government at the feet of the Two-Party Tyranny. He encourages Americans to read the Grand Illusion and to get motivated to take our nation back from the two corporate controlled parties.
In a statement released last week, Congressman Ron Paul commended the work of Free & Equal Elections, and also endorsed Amato’s new book.
“Our laws are stacked against any real third alternative in the two-party monopoly. By and large, candidates must conform to the system or have difficulty even getting on ballots. Americans deserve better, and across the country, people are waking up and working hard to remove unfair barriers. We deserve a system where third parties can compete, and Democrats and Republicans are held to their platforms and rhetoric. I am impressed by the work of the Free & Equal Elections Foundation, and commend them for their leadership on this issue.
Theresa Amato has experienced the unfairness of our system like few others. Her new book “Grand Illusion” is an important contribution that anyone serious about ballot access reform should read. I thank Theresa for sharing her experiences with us and know her book will make a difference.”
To read the full statement from Congressman Paul, Click Here.
Part personal memoir, part political history, part exposé and part impassioned call for electoral reform, Grand Illusion provides a blow-by-blow account of some of the 24 harassing complaints that the Democrats and their allies filed within 12 weeks to remove Nader from the ballot in 18 states. At least 95 lawyers from 53 law firms nationwide joined the effort to stifle Nader’s insurgent campaign.
Nader prevailed in most states, but Grand Illusion will make citizens wonder: How democratic is an electoral process that forces millions of American voters to choose between just two parties, while freezing out competing candidacies and new ideas?
To prevent such abuse and manipulation of the electoral process in the future, in Grand Illusion Amato proposes a number of practical and easy-to-implement reforms, to replace 50 different, and in some cases discriminatory state ballot access laws. Amato also recounts details of behind-the-scenes conversations with presidential candidate John Kerry, and with Howard Dean, who followed McAuliffe as DNC chairman.
Nader filed a federal lawsuit in 2007 and an FEC complaint in 2008 against McAuliffe, the DNC and others who helped finance and coordinate the attempt to suppress Nader’s 2004 presidential candidacy. Both actions are still pending.
63 responses so far ↓
1 Third Party Revolution // Jun 18, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Why won’t Ron Paul ever switch back to the LP or join the CP instead of staying with the soon-to-be dead Republican Party?
2 Dale Sheldon // Jun 18, 2009 at 4:45 pm
If you’re curious about all the details of one particular example of how America’s election system is broken, sure; read Grand Illusion.
For the whole picture, and a real solution (not just “Come on, please vote for third-party candidates, pretty please!”), read Gaming the Vote.
People don’t vote for third parties because doing so damages their immediate interest when they spoil elections; you fix that by using election methods that don’t have spoilers, not by appeals to a fuzzy promise of a better future.
3 Christopher Thrasher // Jun 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm
To Purchase a copy of Grand Illusion, visit Free & Equal online.
http://www.freeandequal.org/the-grand-illusion/buy-the-grand-illusion/
Donate $50 or more to Free & Equal, and receive an autographed copy.
4 NewFederalist // Jun 18, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Initial reaction to the headline of this article… “no shit!”
5 Richard Winger // Jun 18, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I support Instant Runoff Voting and proportional representation, but we should not fall into the trap of thinking that minor parties and independent candidates can’t succeed until we have those alternate voting systems. Great Britain and Canada have very successful minor parties, and they don’t have IRV or proportional representation for their national or provincial elections. What Great Britain and Canada have are nondiscriminatory ballot access laws and fair access to televised candidate debates.
6 d.eris // Jun 18, 2009 at 7:55 pm
“we should not fall into the trap of thinking that minor parties and independent candidates can’t succeed until we have those alternate voting systems.”
Indeed, even the oft-referenced Duverger’s Law states that SMDP voting favors a two-party system, not the Republican and Democratic Parties.
7 Ross Levin // Jun 18, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Richard – why do you support IRV over condorcet or range voting or some other method?
8 Morgan Brykein // Jun 18, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I don’t like IRV for some reason. I like the idea of simply having a runoff election, like in France.
9 Carey Campbell // Jun 18, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Thanks for story.
In Virginia this year we have – depending on who makes the ballot – about 30 Indpendent Greens, Indys, Constitution, Green Party candidates for House of Delegates.
That still leaves 70 districts where it was not possible to find a single person who would get on the ballot.
It only requires 125 signatures.
We must find more ways to encourage more folks to take part.
It’s what Virginia’s Independent Greens have worked to do for many years.
10 Robert Milnes // Jun 19, 2009 at 12:20 am
Candidates don’t participate if they know they are going to lose. So show them they can win with the Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy. Instead of just saying it won’t work & not try like TK & pc/pc.
11 Stefan // Jun 19, 2009 at 5:23 am
What would it help Ron Paul now to switch to the CP or LP: he would be kicked out of the GOP immediately and out of congress and then contest his district 14 as a member of the third party. Every party has its factions. What would it also help him in the LP when he differs from many of them regarding abortion and immigration and gets citicized vehemently by people like George Phillies and be associated with being “libertine” and isolate himself in this way. He also does not agree fully with the CP and especially their emphasis. The CP is more ant-free trade/protectionist in their economic policy as also theocratic, where Paul emphasizes more the difference between church and state, though this is and never can be an absolute. Paul has a very balanced platform and emphathis that can attract people from all over the political spectrum. The CP (US Taxpayers Party) was created for Pat Buchanan and everybody who really knows, knows there is are differences between Buchanan and Paul, along with similarities.
If he goes third party and manage to get elected congressman, he would be probably the only congressman of that party and would have no power to introduce legislation effectively and get it passed and would have no senior committee appointments, where he can question on foreign policy as well as banking.
Paul can also help third parties now much better by introducing legislation that would allow say LP to also run as a Republican and a Green Party to also run as a Democratic Party member as is currently the case in New York.
And if Paul were to run as president on a third party ticket, how is he going to get the news coverage and be allowed to debate. Nobody including Jesse Ventura would be able to win any presidency if he/she cannot debate the candidates of the two major parties. Remember Ventura said IF I can debate them, I can beat them…this also means if one cannot debate them, one cannot beat them. And coming third one is quite ineffective. If there were a proportional system like in continental Europe, third parties would likely perform much better and coalitions would have to be made and there would be no wasted vote or vote for the lesser of two evils, but rather vote for the one closest to my ideals/views. Coalition would also mean there will be more discussion of ideas and consideration, rather than a top-down party program being pushed through.
12 Stefan // Jun 19, 2009 at 5:30 am
Robert: why don’t you lead the way as a “progressive libertarian” and show us you can win a congressional seat with the support of libertarians and greens. You will then make 170 000 a year and provide part of that to other third party candidates to win. You know actions speak louder than words.
13 Stefan // Jun 19, 2009 at 5:46 am
Richard: interesting observation indeed. Yes, the Legue of Woman Voters or a comparable organization need to decide on the presidential participants again. They did manage a debate last year in Ohio with a third party candidate who run as an Independent and I think he got more than 15%. He is Armenian-American and received support from them. Bernie Sanders first got elected as a congressman as a third party/independent and later to the senate, so it can be done.i think he was professor as well.
Personally I think parties like the LP, CP, GP, Independence Party etc. should identify only a few seats for congress (perhaps candidates that run for governor or senate before and thus some name recognition and campaign experience) and concentrate all fundraising and lobbying there with debate access and see if they can win a seat or two in 2010…instead for trying to field as many candidates as possible.
I think about all the third parties were and are against the bailouts and against the Iraq war, so they should select a vulnerable incumbent from either party who has perhaps voted for the bailout and Iraq war /Afghan-Pak war funding and where the incumbent has other vulnerabilities as well and field a really strong candidate.
Another issue: four large minority parties have unified among four principles last year with the Paul/Nader/McKinney/Baldwin joint news conference. This isa good program to adopt and based on this commonality, the parties should agree on a tit for tad support, for instance say the GP field a candidate in Oregon, the Libertarians and Constitutionalists in the same district should unify and support the GP candidate and in another district where the LP has more strength, the GP and CP should unify behind the LP candidate and the same with the CP in another district. This way one ensures maximum third party support and can ensure third party congressional candidates elected. They can continue with this arrangement till at least say each party has managed to get a representative elected, and then they can start battling among themselves again, in other districts.
14 Matt // Jun 19, 2009 at 1:04 pm
It’s funny. I love both Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, specifically because they speak truth to power so honestly and unabashedly.
I think that Nader and Paul have more in common than people think. People often portray Nader as a hard-leftist crusader, and while that is not entirely inaccurate, it leaves out a whole other side of Nader. He is a big believer in small business capitalism.
Check out this article by this right-wing guy who came out of a Nader rally with a different view of Nader, it’s a great read, and very insightful.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/nov/08/00010/
15 Catholic Trotskyist // Jun 19, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Dale and Stefan, good job, you are coming very close to the Catholic Trotskyist left-right parallel center fringe alliance strategy.
Ron Paul, please move away from Ralph Criminal Nader and start moving towards Cynthia McKinney and Cindy Sheehan for your main left supporters. Nader is indeed right-wing, as more people are finding out, and purposefully sabotaged the Democratic Party as the mastermind of the Bush Republican New world Order Control Conspiracy, which sane right-wingers like Paul and Baldwin and Huckabee, along with Obama and the left, are fighting hard against to start the Catholic Trotskyist World Government.
I am planning to file suit against Larry King Live because he had the Jonas Brothers on his show last night instead of doing something worthwhile like hosting a debate between me and Robert Milnes. I’m also chastising Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilley, Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, The View, Dr Phil, Oprah, and others for refusing to talk about Catholic Trotskyism or the Milnes strategy on their shows.
16 Dave Schwab // Jun 19, 2009 at 4:35 pm
“Paul can also help third parties now much better by introducing legislation that would allow say LP to also run as a Republican and a Green Party to also run as a Democratic Party member as is currently the case in New York.”
If you want a political system that works better, the last thing you want to do is emulate New York. The NY Greens don’t do fusion; I think the Libertarians stay away as well. There are also the Independent, Conservative and Working Families ‘parties’, but they are basically just ballot lines for sale. Fusion is a nice idea in theory (maybe in a world with lots of small, single-issue parties and without big money in politics), but a total mess in practice.
17 Donald Raymond Lake // Jun 19, 2009 at 8:40 pm
The more alternative ‘loyal opposition’ succeeds [1912, 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992] the more the duopoly establishment illegally pushes back.
Reach the bar, the establishment resets the game!
18 Eric Dondero // Jun 20, 2009 at 6:31 am
Pretty ironic, that Ralph Nader is all of a sudden standing up for free elections and signature gatherer’s rights, when it was PRECISELY! his people, the “Nader’s Raiders” signature gatherers who blocked Libertarian Party petitioners from gathering signatures at locations all throughout Ohio, New England region and other States for Bob Barr in 2008.
Nader is a Fascist, and his supporters nothing less than Liberal-Authoritarian Thugs.
Pretty pathetic that Ron Paul would have anything to do with this scumbag.
19 libertariangirl // Jun 20, 2009 at 11:32 am
I did not know that . Thanks for the info Dondero , it definately affects my feelings about Nader , who Ive always sorta liked.
20 Melty // Jun 20, 2009 at 11:41 am
#8 Morgan – Top Two Runoff after a Plurality vote is a help and simple as you say.
Myself, I say, go for the the simplest of all voting methods -just do Approval Voting. From there you can notch up complexity if you wish (like throw on a Top Two Runoff, some other simple hybrid, do Range. . .). Do not start with an elaborate method. That’s asking for trouble. In more ways than one, with voting methods, simple is good.
21 paulie // Jun 20, 2009 at 11:48 am
LG,
Nader and LP were cooperating on getting signatures in every state where it was legally allowed.
22 libertariangirl // Jun 20, 2009 at 11:55 am
why did Nader cause problems in Ohio ?
23 Ross Levin // Jun 20, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Dave – it would be nice if parties had the freedom to do fusion, though. I don’t think there’s any reason to give them the option, even if they chose not to use it.
24 Andy // Jun 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“Eric Dondero // Jun 20, 2009 at 6:31 am
Pretty ironic, that Ralph Nader is all of a sudden standing up for free elections and signature gatherer’s rights, when it was PRECISELY! his people, the ‘Nader’s Raiders’ signature gatherers who blocked Libertarian Party petitioners from gathering signatures at locations all throughout Ohio, New England region and other States for Bob Barr in 2008.”
That’s funny, because I’ve run into Nader petitioners all over the country and never once had a problem with them. All the ones that I ran into were very open to having the Libertarian Party and other minor party and independent candidates on the ballot.
25 Eric Dondero // Jun 20, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Ron Cook of Houston, was brought up to New Hampshire to petition. He’s one of the best in the country. The Nader fuckers followed him wherever he went, and surrounded him to keep him from gathering signatures. Happened in Concord at all the shopping malls and supermarkets, and in Keene, Exeter and Seabrook.
They harrassed me in Manchester and tried to block me, but I told one young fucker that I’d kick his ass, right in front of a DMV. He and his motley crew left.
LPNH Chair Brandon Kelly can confirm all this. Just ask him about Ron Cook and the Exeter Fair.
Of course, this is all politically incorrect, cause lefty libertarians like to be all touchey feely about Nader.
Ask Andy Rule, Treasurer of the CT LP. Andy ran the 2008 petition drive.
The Naderites dicked us on the last night of turn-in. They were supposed to help Andy notarize all the LP petitions, as Andy did for their people.
Well, they all left at 9 pm before any LP petitioners got there.
Andy was stuck there notarizing til 6 am all by himself.
Of course, we did not make the ballot in CT. I still maintain the Naderites were responsible for us not making it.
This is a greatly untold story of 2008 Third Party campaigns. Ralph Nader and his Socialist Fucks dicked us Libertarians every chance they could get. But of course, nobody wants to talk about it.
26 Eric Dondero // Jun 20, 2009 at 9:25 pm
BTW, we very well could have lost two states in 2008 because of Nader and his Fascist Fuckers.
Ron Cook and I, along with David Jackson of Oklahoma, the LP’s three top petitioners, had to stay in Connecticut til the very end of the drive. This was not planned.
We were supposed to leave two days early. But because of the fact that the Nader people would not carry our petitions as they had promised we had to get an extra 2,000 sigs.
It turned into a giant clusterfuck. Utter chaos those last two to three days.
As a result, Cook, Jackson and I were super tired heading up to Maine. We got there two days later than anticipated, and by the time we arrived it was too late to petition that day. Plus we were utterly exhausted.
Result: Only 4 days to gather over 3,000 signatures for the Maine drive. This was nearly impossible. We ended up getting only 2,500. Though we still handed them in to the town clerks.
In essence, if we had not had to stay in CT an extra two days, we would have not been so exhausted, and we would have most likely had enough time to get the 3,000 Maine sigs. It still might have been close, but I firmly believe we would have made it.
So, thanks to the Nader fuckers, we not only lost Connecticut, but Maine, as well.
27 Danny S // Jun 20, 2009 at 9:27 pm
In that instance there were some guys who were petty, but I don’t think that is necessarily Nader himself or nationwide. Just some shortsighted punks.
28 Eric Dondero // Jun 20, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Libertarian Girl, in Ohio the Nader fuckers worked in collusion with the Socialist/Fascists of ACORN.
We had far less petitioners in Ohio on the ground than the ACORN-Naderites. So, they acted together to steal our best locations.
Typically, they’d send three or four of their thugs out to surround a Libertarian petitioner, and keep them from getting any signatures.
This happened to me at the downtown Cincinnati Library. Ironically the Library folks liked us Libertarians. They told us we were the most polite petitioners they’d ever met. And they gave us permission to petition. They did not want to give permission to the ACORN-Naderites, because all they did was yell and scream and scare away all the library patrons.
Well, of course, the ACORN-Nader fuckers were jealous of our access, so they did everything they could to keep us from getting sigs at that library.
Similar incidents happened all over the State.
29 Eric Dondero // Jun 20, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Danny S, I blame the Nader people at the top. It was not at all an isolated instance. It happened everywhere we went. And in 2008 I was the LP’s top signature gatherer. I petitioned in 7 different states in the Mid-West and New England.
You must understand, that it’s not only Nader. It’s ACORN too. The two groups are one in the same. Most especially in Ohio.
You would be amazed at the tactics they use on the ground.
Bottom line: They absolutely hate Libertarians, and see us as even more dangerous to their leftwing Fascist cause as conservatives.
30 mdh // Jun 20, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Conservatives and Liberals are the same nowadays anyway. Libertarians are more dangerous to them because we actually stand for something different.
31 Andy // Jun 20, 2009 at 10:16 pm
“They did not want to give permission to the ACORN-Naderites, because all they did was yell and scream and scare away all the library patrons.
Well, of course, the ACORN-Nader fuckers were jealous of our access, so they did everything they could to keep us from getting sigs at that library.”
ACORN was NOT supporting Nader. ACORN were (are) big time Barack Obama supporters. In fact, Obama used to work for ACORN.
32 Andy // Jun 20, 2009 at 10:28 pm
The ACORN people were actually OPPOSED to Ralph Nader because they believed that he was going to take votes away from Barack Obama.
33 Steven R Linnabary // Jun 20, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Andy, that was always my impression about ACORN.
Also, Christina Tobin is a longtime, hardcore second generation Libertarian. Christina was the Nader ballot access coordinator.
I seriously doubt she would have allowed any such thing to happen under her watch.
And before somebody asks why she was working for Nader, I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking a mercenary role in electioneering. Many Libertarian petitioners I know work for anything that will make them money when their talents aren’t wanted or needed.
I’ll bet that even Eric has petitioned for nonlibertarian candidates or issues. Everybody has to eat.
34 libertariangirl // Jun 20, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Andy_ACORN was NOT supporting Nader. ACORN were (are) big time Barack Obama supporters. In fact, Obama used to work for ACORN.
me_ hoe does this disprove Erics statements at all?
if Acorn is with Obama and Nader is with Acorn then …?
Nader is with Obama?
thats the logical conclusion Im reaching.
35 libertariangirl // Jun 20, 2009 at 10:58 pm
unless your saying Erics lying , but I see no reason to assume that
36 Andy // Jun 20, 2009 at 11:18 pm
“And before somebody asks why she was working for Nader, I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking a mercenary role in electioneering. Many Libertarian petitioners I know work for anything that will make them money when their talents aren’t wanted or needed.”
There aren’t that many actual Libertarian petitioners. Most of the people whom the Libertarian Party hires to gather petition signatures are NOT Libertarians, they are mercenaries who are out to make a buck (the same goes for the Nader campaign for that matter). There are only about 6 or 7 actual Libertarian petitioners who are active, maybe 2 or 3 others that I’m forgetting, not much more than that.
All of the actual real Libertarian petitioners have in fact turned down working on numerous petitioners for idealogical reasons.
We have gathered signatures for other minor party and/or independent candidates though, not only for the money, but also because 1) for the most party other minor party & independent candidates are usually less toxic than the majority of Democrat or Republican candidates, and 2) we know that they stand litte chance of winning anything. I would rather work on a petition for say the Constitution Party or the Green Party or Ralph Nader than gather signatures for an anti-liberty ballot initiative.
“I’ll bet that even Eric has petitioned for nonlibertarian candidates or issues. Everybody has to eat.”
I know that Eric Dondero petitioned to put Joe Lieberman on the ballot in Connecticut as an independent candidate for US Senate, and Lieberman is one of the most anti-liberty members of the Senate. I also know that Eric has pushed Republican voter reigistrations in California. However, to his credit, I’ve heard that Eric has turned down working on some anti-liberty ballot initiatives over the years, such as an initiative to increase the minimum wage in Colorado.
37 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 12:23 am
That’s funny, because I’ve run into Nader petitioners all over the country and never once had a problem with them. All the ones that I ran into were very open to having the Libertarian Party and other minor party and independent candidates on the ballot
Same here.
38 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 12:33 am
Of course, we did not make the ballot in CT. I still maintain the Naderites were responsible for us not making it.
Look closer to home as to why were not on in CT. I was staying 1.5 miles from the CT border when Mass ended and was told to go to Alabama instead. Jake was actually in his car and about to go to CT (where he has worked before and knew good locations), but was told not to. He went to Alabama too. Gary was close by to CT, also experienced there and in Maine, but ended up working Rhode Island without the LP on his boards because he was kept from doing LP work.
So, of course, we ended Alabama early, since they also brought in another crew there for no good reason whatsoever, and ended up working in Alabama with only the Constitution Party left on our boards out of the original three (Barr, Nader, Baldwin).
39 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 12:38 am
Ironically the Library folks liked us Libertarians. They told us we were the most polite petitioners they’d ever met. And they gave us permission to petition.
Libraries have no right to exclude petitioners from working outside. We have court cases on this – SCOTUS IIRC.
40 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 12:41 am
Correct. ACORN supported Obama. Obama supporters opposed Nader petitions because they blame Nader for Bush winning Florida in 2000 (they, too, should look closer to home for the blame.)
41 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 12:46 am
Nader and LP cooperated everywhere we could. I did Nader, LP and CP in Mass and Alabama. Jake did the same in WV.
In Illinois, I only did LP due to state law, but the one time I was head to head with a Nader petitioner, he was friendly, despite the fact that we were in direct competition.
And it was the same way in 2000 and 2004.
I have never had a problem with a Nader petitioner in any state or year.
42 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 12:47 am
That would be an illogical conclusion, lol
43 Tyler // Jun 21, 2009 at 4:07 am
“You must understand, that it’s not only Nader. It’s ACORN too. The two groups are one in the same. Most especially in Ohio.”
I actually fell out of my chair laughing at this one. I suppose we should say that the DNC was also in on it too…
44 libertariangirl // Jun 21, 2009 at 10:00 am
That would be an illogical conclusion, lol
I get that , just that what Andy said doesnt disprove what Eric said .
Is Eric lying about the problems LP petitioners had with Nader folks? if so , why would he
45 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 10:09 am
He wants to paint everything as a left/right battle, where he sees the Libertarians lined up with Republicans and Nader lined up with Democrats.
In reality, it is more frequently the establishment – Democrats and Republicans working together, like different families in a mafia commission or different corporations in a cartel – against all outsiders, whether those be Nader, LP, Greens, CP, Socialists, etc. Interesting, too, that there are a whole host of issues, such as the four planks of the Campaign for Liberty and some others, where all these smaller parties tend to agree, and to disagree with both establishment parties. Ballot access is, of course, another.
As I said, my experience in three election cycles and numerous states has been that Nader and LP work together on getting each other’s petitions where we can, and try to stay out of each other’s way when we can’t. Andy’s experience has been the same. Why Eric’s would be so different, I have no idea. I guess it may have something to do with him.
46 mdh // Jun 21, 2009 at 10:22 am
Paulie @45 is right on the money.
47 libertariangirl // Jun 21, 2009 at 10:32 am
makes sense to me then , i was just playin devils advocate for boredoms sake:)
48 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 10:38 am
Isn’t that what sex toys and webcams are for?
49 libertariangirl // Jun 21, 2009 at 10:39 am
I must say the Clark County and Nevada GP let me post LP business on their email list , plus we worked together protesting a military recruiting office once and we shut it down for the day. so Ive had good experiences with them
50 libertariangirl // Jun 21, 2009 at 10:41 am
oh for shizzle you have access to a pc now ,
Hmmm , makes me wonder…
51 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 10:48 am
LOL. Maybe. We’ll have to find a time when **** is sleeping.
52 mdh // Jun 21, 2009 at 11:04 am
I thought he only slept when you needed to be picked up from a petitioning location? lol
53 Dave Schwab // Jun 21, 2009 at 11:12 am
“Dave – it would be nice if parties had the freedom to do fusion, though. I don’t think there’s any reason to give them the option, even if they chose not to use it.”
I’m assuming you meant ‘I don’t think there’s any reason not to give them the option…’
A fair enough point. I generally don’t see why political parties should have to deal with restrictive electoral laws in the first place. But fusion is quite low on my list of desired electoral reforms.
In fact, it’s not even on my list. Fusion is a good red-herring for the establishment parties to get behind, making it look like they’re trying to reform the electoral system. They can happily get behind fusion, knowing that in the absence of major reforms, fusion only props up their power by co-opting dissatisfied voters into ‘paper parties’ that sell their ballot lines to the Republicrats.
54 paulie // Jun 21, 2009 at 11:38 am
I thought he only slept when you needed to be picked up from a petitioning location? lol
It’s either that, or he’s in the bathroom “stretching on the edge of the bathtub” for an hour. Like right now, for example. It never fails; if I always went to work at the same time, you could probably set your clock by it.
55 Andy // Jun 21, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“Look closer to home as to why were not on in CT. I was staying 1.5 miles from the CT border when Mass ended and was told to go to Alabama instead. Jake was actually in his car and about to go to CT (where he has worked before and knew good locations), but was told not to. He went to Alabama too. Gary was close by to CT, also experienced there and in Maine, but ended up working Rhode Island without the LP on his boards because he was kept from doing LP work.
So, of course, we ended Alabama early, since they also brought in another crew there for no good reason whatsoever, and ended up working in Alabama with only the Constitution Party left on our boards out of the original three (Barr, Nader, Baldwin).”
It should be pointed out that the IDIOTIC and IRRATIONAL decisions mentioned above were all made by the disgraced former LP Political Director, Sean Haugh. It was Sean Haugh who caused the LP to fail to make the ballot in Connecticut and Maine, and he also played a role (either directly or indirectly) in other ballot access failures that occurred in 2008 (including causing some regional candidates (as in people running for state legislature) to fail to make the ballot in Pennsylvania).
Sean Haugh is a menace to ballot access and should be kept far away from having anything to do with ballot access or any other position in the party for that matter. The entire Libertarian Party SHOULD BE pissed off at Sean Haugh because he caused thousands of dollars of donor’s money to be squandered on failed ballot access drives (drives that COULD HAVE been successful had he not fucked them up).
56 Danny S // Jun 21, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Well I know Eric once posted a long story up about Rand Paul’s name that appeared factual. But then, on his campaign website Rand made another video that said a different story. So, in that case either Eric Dondero or Rand Paul lied.
57 Andy // Jun 22, 2009 at 3:41 am
The Nader campaign did not cause the LP to fail to make the ballot in any state. In fact, if the LP had not been able to utilize petitioners that were hired by the Nader campaign to also work LP petitions the LP would have failed to make the ballot in even more states than it did.
I ran into Nader petitioners in several states and never had a problem with them. Most of the time they were also carrying LP, but when I saw them in Illinois they were only carrying Nader (I’m pretty sure that Illinois prohibits petitioners from gathering signatures on more than one candidate petition) and they never gave me any problems.
Also, as I said above, most of the petitioners hired by the Nader campaign as well as the LP as well as most petitioners in general are not idealogues. The majority of them are people who are just out to make a buck, and this includes most of the people hired to do voter registration by ACORN.
When I am out gathering signatures and I run into another petitioner who is working on something different than I’m working I try to work with them. In other words, since we are doing something different, I will say something like, “OK, you refer people to me and I’ll refer people to you.” (as in I’ll ask people I stop to check out your petititon and you should ask people you stop to check out my petition). This usually works just fine.
The general rule in petitioning is first come first serve at a location. That is whichever petitioner gets there first should have the spot and other petitioners who arrive later should leave. However, if a location is large enough, say there are multiple doors or it is a festival or college campus or something like that, then more than one petitioner can work there and they should spread out.
If it is a one door spot then it should be for one petitioner, however, if another petitioner is working on something different than I’m working and if there is room for that petitioner to stand, I generally don’t have a problem with that person working along side me (as long as they aren’t creating a disturbance).
Some petitioners are reasonable people, but just like in every group there are a few bad apples who will try to jump in front of other petitioners even if they arrived at a location first and who will act like jackasses.
I doubt that the Nader campaign itself had anything to do with any misconduct that may have gone on from petitioners. And, as much as I dislike ACORN, any misconduct that may have occurred from people working for ACORN was probably due to them being random jackasses and was not an official policy of the organization.
I think that in most states a person can sign petitions for more than one candidate or party, but there are some states where you can only sign for one party. Dondero mentioned Ohio, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. A person can sign for more than one candidate/party in Ohio and Connecticut, but in New Hampshire a person can only sign for one candidate/party. In a situation where a person can only sign one of the petitions I could see more problems of petitioners butting heads occurring.
Another problem is that in most states it is difficult to get locations where you can ask people to sign petitions without getting kicked out. In such places whatever places where you can petition without getting kicked out tend to get overrun with petitions if there are multiple petitioners working in the same area. This type of situation can cause problems with petitioners butting heads over locations, but this problem is mainly due to suppression of free speech and petition rights at various locations.
58 Christina Tobin // Jun 24, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Eric Dondero // Jun 20, 2009 at 6:31 am
“Pretty ironic, that Ralph Nader is all of a sudden standing up for free elections and signature gatherer’s rights, when it was PRECISELY! his people, the “Nader’s Raiders” signature gatherers who blocked Libertarian Party petitioners from gathering signatures at locations all throughout Ohio, New England region and other States for Bob Barr in 2008.
Nader is a Fascist, and his supporters nothing less than Liberal-Authoritarian Thugs.
Pretty pathetic that Ron Paul would have anything to do with this scumbag.”
I have no idea where these allegations are coming from, they were never brought to my attention. The Nader Campaign worked well with libertarians in the past. I’m sorry Eric experienced what he did.
59 Christina Tobin // Jun 24, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Andy // Jun 22, 2009 at 3:41 am
“The Nader campaign did not cause the LP to fail to make the ballot in any state. In fact, if the LP had not been able to utilize petitioners that were hired by the Nader campaign to also work LP petitions the LP would have failed to make the ballot in even more states than it did.”
The Nader campaign would’ve NEVER been able to make it on all 45 ballot plus Washington D.C. w/o the support of the LP. It goes both ways.
Thank you for your honesty Andy. It has been an absolute pleasure working with you thus far. You are an outstanding petitioner & a team player. Keep at it!
60 Erik Geib // Jun 24, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Eric Dondero is hardly a libertian by any standard, and I shutter to think he’s attempting to speak on behalf of the LP.
I disagree with Nader’s political views, but that doesn’t stop me from appreciating all the independent/third party advocacy and cooperation he’s helped with.
Dondero should go back to his war-mongering playground.
61 Erik Geib // Jun 24, 2009 at 10:03 pm
*shudder
-I don’t always catch the typos on the BlackBerry.
62 VAGreen // Jun 24, 2009 at 10:36 pm
In Virginia, at least two of the Green Party’s paid petitioners also collected for Nader. One of the Libertarian petitioners collected for Nader, and when he was finished getting Barr on the ballot, he helped us out the Green Party as well.
The Libertarians’ paid petitioners collected 783 signatures for the Green Party of Virginia. The Green petition drive collected a total of 14,400 raw signatures, and we needed 10,000 valid signatures to make the ballot. It’s quite possible that the Libertarians put us over the top.
63 Christina Tobin // Jun 25, 2009 at 6:00 pm
The LP turned over their entire New York petition drive to the Nader campaign in 2008 after they collected enough signatures. Thanks to the help of the LP, the Nader campaign collected enough signatures and got on the ballot. The Nader campaign then handed over the entire petition drive to the Constitution party. Talk about teamwork!
Leave a Comment