DescentBB

....was out collecting signatures for Obama and Casey earlier, so that they can qualify for the State ballot. As candidates from one of the two 'major' parties, each needs a grand total of 2000 signatures to qualify. 2000, in a state with 1.7 million voters, IIRC. To contrast, I believe an Independent candidate for statewide federal office needs over 150,000 valid signatures, and they can be thrown out for stuff like ditto marks in the address lines, mailing address town instead of township of residence, etc. We had a discussion a ways back about what changes strong independent candidates could bring to bear on the system. Here is an example of why that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

No surprise. The two ruling elite parties don't want any competition.

What’s your point Slick, didn’t you say you preferred the 2 party system. It’s nice when you can tow the line for the powers that be, then ask how the others feel.

Just a little more…rubbing it in, huh…

Spidey wrote:What’s your point Slick, didn’t you say you preferred the 2 party system.

please find where I ever wrote that. On any forum, if you wish to branch out. You are either mistaken or hallucinating.

It’s nice when you can tow the line for the powers that be, then ask how the others feel.

Just a little more…rubbing it in, huh…

I play the game as presented, and support the candidates I choose, irrespective of party, I might add. That's how I end up on both
Dem and GOP fundraising mailing lists. Of recent years, as the GOP has gotten loonier and loonier, yes, I prefer one party, but would love to have a viable system of multiple parties.

oh, and my point, Spidey? I was just struck by the extremely low numbers needed by major party candidates, and, if you think back,
we had a thread dealing with third-party candidacies in which I pointed out that they have a difficult row to hoe.

If the purpose of signatures is to limit the playing field to serious contenders, then obviously that is accomplished just as well by the Republican and Democrat's system of narrowing to a single candidate as it is by the independent's required 150,000 signatures (better, actually). 150,000 is not an unreasonable number, in my mind. It equates to getting the approval of very roughly 4% of the United States, adult population (assuming 70% adult) to run for President. Those are bad numbers?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If the purpose of signatures is to limit the playing field to serious contenders, then obviously that is accomplished just as well by the Republican and Democrat's system of narrowing to a single candidate as it is by the independent's required 150,000 signatures (better, actually). 150,000 is not an unreasonable number, in my mind. It equates to getting the approval of very roughly 4% of the United States, adult population (assuming 70% adult) to run for President. Those are bad numbers?

let me clarify. That was referring to getting on the ballot in ONE state: Pennsylvania. So, yes, you are working with bad numbers there. 150,000 voters equates to roughly 5% of the electorate. Why should a major party candidate have to
only produce the notarized support of 1/75 as many people as an independent? I see no logic in your argument, Thorne.

My short-sited mathematical assumption notwithstanding, the logic in my argument is that the 2000 signature candidates for Republican (or Democrat) nomination may not have collect as many signatures as the independent, but they have traded the task of collecting another 148,000 signatures for the task of convincing the Republican party base that they are the best candidate to be sent to the election as the Republican candidate.

Ok Slick, I did a search and I think I may have misunderstood one of your posts. But I still find it funny to be concerned about third parties, while working for the establishment.

Spidey wrote:Ok Slick, I did a search and I think I may have misunderstood one of your posts. But I still find it funny to be concerned about third parties, while working for the establishment.

that's because you don't really know or get me, yet......I work for the Obama campaign, and donate the two grand or so allowed to them. On the other hand, I won't lift a finger or give a dime to the nitwit they are running(for the second time) in my Congressional district. When Gore was the Presidential candidate, I was at a Dem fundraiser and suggested substituting Pinnochio, if we HAD to run a wooden boy for office(I'd had a couple adult beverages when I blurted that one out). I told Ed Rendell, to his face, that he was being delusional thinking that Kerry could beat Bush. And so on. I am anything but 'establishment' anything. Also, out of upbringing and other early conditioning, I try to stay on good terms with rational members of BOTH major parties, as they can come in handy if one needs an ear bent toward a matter of personal interest. Hell, by the time I graduated high school, I had been face to face with pols ranging the political spectrum from a young Joe Biden to Strom Thurmond(nice lunch with him in Charleston when I was all of 15). That's symbolic of where the nation, as a group, has gone badly awry, politically. Too often, folks ONLY support or follow candidates and elected officials within a very narrow spectrum of ideology. Back in the day, Congress was chock full of conservatives(real, honest conservatives) and liberals who could interact, break bread, argue like hell, and then forge compromise solutions to real problems before the nation. Sad to say, that is no longer happening, except on very rare instances.

Sad to say, that is no longer happening, except on very rare instances.

It's because of all that "bending things of personal interest" going on.