This scenario gets played out whenever there is a lengthy fillibuster.
The party that engineers the fillibuster stands at the sacred dais of legislative tradition, while the party that can't kill the fillibuster whines about constitutionality and schemes to rid the nation of the fillibuster plague.
Yawn. Same old, same old.
A deal will get cut with a few wavering Democrats in the next week, tossing them a couple of biscuits for their home districts. It is almost inevitable that self-serving politicians will remember the people who elected them.
And you know what? Despite all the whining, life goes on. We have never been harmed, in the long run, by a fillibuster. These are merely exercises in annoyance.
posted by historymike at 07:06 A.M. EST on Thu May 19, 2005 #
We have never been harmed, in the long run, by a fillibuster.
Never been harmed by the filibuster? I would go so far as to say such things as the filibuster and the veto have helped us, the general public. Both things are a limit on government. In the 90’s the veto was used a lot. It shut down the government sometimes. Did this result in children dying in the streets? No, it just merely got the budget balanced.
posted by mike2004 at 08:54 A.M. EST on Thu May 19, 2005 #
The only thing that bothers me about it is that in the 90's, when Clinton was prez, the same democrats who want to filibuster today were screaming at the republicans for using it then! A bunch of them even voted to abolish the fillibuster so the GOP couldn't use it to stop Clinton's appointees and other decisions because they were outnumbered. Now that the numbers have changed in the senate, the democrats have forgotten about how they wanted to give Clinton's nominees an up or down vote, and they don't want to give Bush's nominees the same thing.
posted by nomorejack at 01:08 P.M. EST on Thu May 19, 2005 #
and the same republicans that are now saying the filibuster is bad were howling that it was their their right to do so....
The never ending hypocrisy...the only thing that changes is which side is now outraged over what they just recently did.
Republicans supposedly don't want activist judges yet Owens and Rogers-Brown have a long history of "creating law" the only difference is they will more likely create law the Republicans like....and if it were the Democrats in power? They'd want judges that were "activist" towards their agenda....
Which is why in reality we need a third party. Our founding fathers never intended this to be a two party show and that would break up their power plays....
posted by psyche777 at 09:32 P.M. EST on Thu May 19, 2005 #
Everybody duck! psyche777 has hit on one of my pet peeves.
Do you know what it would take to officially organize a third party here in Ohio, psyche777?
If you don't, please save me the trouble of looking it up again and posting it, and demonstrate that you can walk that talk and look it up in the Ohio Revised Code by doing so and posting it here.
If there's one thing that the two parties hate more than each other, it is the very concept of a third party coming to power, or a third-party candidate being elected to major office.
Now, please, PLEASE take a dive into election law and tell me what the requirements are for organizing and maintaining a new party in Ohio, and what the requirements are to get on the ballot as a third-party and as an independent candidate here in Ohio. Tell me how many signatures are needed on a nominating petition for an independent to run for Congress or governor vs. a party candidate.
Come on, surely someone else is capable of doing the research. It might make for a fun afternoon or evening, actually.
posted by anonymouscoward at 05:45 A.M. EST on Fri May 20, 2005 #
The rules are rigged against third parties in this state.
A person can run as an independent presidential candidate in Ohio by meeting the statutory requirements, which is chiefly the collection of 5000 signatures.
Not too bad.
It gets constrictive when a person wants to run as a party candidate. Ohio currently recognizes just two political parties: the Democrats and Republicans.
From Ohio Revised Code 3517.01:
A political party within the meaning of Title XXXV [35] of the Revised Code is any group of voters that, at the most recent regular state election, polled for its candidate for governor in the state or nominees for presidential electors at least five per cent of the entire vote cast for that office or that filed with the secretary of state, subsequent to any election in which it received less than five per cent of that vote, a petition signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least one per cent of the total vote for governor or nominees for presidential electors at the most recent election, declaring their intention of organizing a political party, the name of which shall be stated in the declaration, and of participating in the succeeding primary election, held in even-numbered years, that occurs more than one hundred twenty days after the date of filing. No such group of electors shall assume a name or designation that is similar, in the opinion of the secretary of state, to that of an existing political party as to confuse or mislead the voters at an election. If any political party fails to cast five per cent of the total vote cast at an election for the office of governor or president, it shall cease to be a political party.
So, in short, a would-be political party needs roughly 32,000 votes for either governor or president in the last election to get on the ballot.
Good quote from Robert Butler of the Ohio Libertarian Party: "The Libertarian Party is on the ballot in Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and 48 American states, but not in Ohio."
posted by historymike at 06:48 A.M. EST on Fri May 20, 2005 #
well historymike beat me too it....I know the two parties have made it almost impossible for a third party to succeed. Add to what HM wrote the way the rules have changed to prevent third party presidential candidates from being able to participate in the debates. How many of you listened or watched the replays of the third party candidate debates? I did, thanks to the wonders of the internet and CSPAN was the only one I'm aware of that bothered to show it as a replay.
The very process that allowed these two parties to hold such a strangelhold also allows them to change the rules to continue to exisit.
That said, it is up to US to do something about it. If we managed to fight England and form our own government? We are perfectly capable of taking back some of the power. The problem is most people have bought into the "voting third party throws away your vote" theory. As long as there are not enough of us who have the courage of our convictions to make a third party really happen? It won't....
posted by psyche777 at 09:10 A.M. EST on Fri May 20, 2005 #
Historymike, I should buy you a beer for caring enough to take the time to look it up.
A would-be party would need a number of people greater than or equal to one percent of the vote for governor in the last election to sign a petition declaring their intent to organize a political party.
Good luck.
As for candidacy requirements:
Senate:
Major party candidate: 1000
Minor party candidate: 500
Independent candidate: 5000
U.S. Representative:
Major party: 50
Minor party: 25
Independent: Based on the number of votes cast in the congressional district for governor during the last election for that office --
Fewer than 5000: 25 or 5% of the vote (whichever is less)
5000 and greater: 1% of vote (this is approximately 1900 for Marcy Kaptur's district, please feel free to confirm that with the Lucas County Board of Elections at (419) 213-4001.
Ohio Senate or Representative or County Offices
Same as U.S. Representative, except the requirements for independent candidates are measured by their Ohio Senate or Representative district, or county for county offices.
If basing the requirements for an independent on the vote for governor so that one has to get 40 times as many signatures on the nominating petition (MINIMUM! -- you are advised to get at least half again as many because some will be tossed out) is not PUREST BULL$#!+ then I don't know what is. Ballot access in Ohio is a joke.
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/pubAffairs/elections/candReq.pdf
I am ALL IN FAVOR of California Recall rules. $3000 gets you on the ballot, or you have to get so many signatures and each signature pro-rates that $3000 down so you can get on for "free" if you have enough signatures.
Take a look at the list of all registered political parties in the United Kingdom:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm
(Just click Search)
Some of my favorites:
Anti Party
Chaos Party [The]
Church of the Militant Elvis Party
End is Nigh [The]
Fancy Dress Party
Grumpy Old Men Political Party [The]
Legalise Cannabis Alliance
Motorcycle News Party
MP3 Party
No Candidate Deserves My Vote!
No Party [The]
Official Monster Raving Loony Party [The]
Rock 'n Roll Loony Party [The]
Personality AND Rational Thinking? Yes! Party
Pink Party
Rock 'N Roll Loony Party [The]
Vote For Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket
I believe there was an All Night Party at one point. :)
posted by anonymouscoward at 10:00 A.M. EST on Fri May 20, 2005 #
Yes, modern American politics have become ridiculous.
In my opinion, there will be some sort of political revolution in the next decade. I hope that it will be a non-violent one. We can't continue with two status-quo parties without enough people getting pissed off.
I doubt that the Democrats will survive the fallout except in name. They have become almost indistinguishable from the Republicans. The last election was proof: the candidates who offered alternatives - Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton - were destroyed as much by the DLC as by the Republicans, while the bland mainstream candidates got the big money and party support.
NOW - before anyone starts labelling me with some leftist moniker - I am not touting any of the three Dems I mentioned. I am merely pointing out that the Democratic Party is stuck trying to position itself as Republican-Lite, instead of being a real alternative.
Kerry and Bush, despite the campaign rhetoric, are pretty close in philosophies; they seem to differ only in degrees (with the possible exception of Kerry's abortion stand: "As a Catholic I find it repugnant, but the ultimate decision is between a woman and her doctor.")
There seems to be enough anti-multinational corporation, pro-environment, and sustainable growth types to make a stand as a legitimate threat to the Republicrats, if they can get past the other ideological differences.
The problem will be one of image. It is far too easy for the mainstream media to paint people who try to be forward-thinking as radicals or extremists, instead of people who think there may be new solutions to old problems.
I think that the Republicans will keep the Libertarian-minded fiscal conservatives on board with the fundamentalists for the next few eelections, but they too will eventually tire of being chained to religious ideologues.
Eventually, I think that Libertarians, Greens,and Reform Party remnants will coalesce along common issues to form a new party, pulling disaffected Republicans and Democrats with them.
But then again, I have not voted on the side of a winning presidential ticket since I voted for Reagan in 1984, so be advised that my track record is lousy.
Historians make lousy prognosticators, although we sometimes can tell you what happened.
posted by historymike at 11:03 A.M. EST on Fri May 20, 2005 #
But then again, I have not voted on the side of a winning presidential ticket since I voted for Reagan in 1984, so be advised that my track record is lousy.
At least you can claim one HM, I've never had a presidential candidate I voted for win, infact I jokingly said this last time I should vote for Bush just to make sure he didn't win....
posted by psyche777 at 11:32 A.M. EST on Fri May 20, 2005 #
Have yet to vote for a Bush. My last 6 votes:
Reagan 1984
Ron Paul (Libertarian) 1988
Perot 1992
Dole 1996 (hey - he knows his way around Washington, and he's no fundamentalist sycophant)
Nader 2000 (Green Party)
Kerry 2004 ( I bought into the "anybody-but-Bush" crap...sucker! Should have written in Nader as a protest)
posted by historymike at 04:52 P.M. EST on Fri May 20, 2005 #
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Ross Perot was ultimately right about the "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the USA.
He just didn't get the countries that would be doing the sucking right.
posted by anonymouscoward at 06:32 P.M. EST on Fri May 20, 2005 #
Okay...now you'll know alot about me from this one - lol
1980 -- Jimmy Carter
1984 -- John Anderson
1988 -- Ron Paul
1992 -- Ross Perot
1996 -- Ross Perot
2000 -- Storm Bear Williams as a write in I went wayyy out there that year, but I liked him
2004 -- Michael Badnarik
couldn't vote for Kerry -- I voted for Edwards in the primary I originally wanted Dean, then pinned my hopes on Gary Nolan who didn't get the Libertarian spot....
posted by psyche777 at 07:15 P.M. EST on Fri May 20, 2005 #
1984: not old enough to vote
1988: ditto
1992: ditto, liked Ross Perot over the other two
1996: still not old enough to vote, wished Perot wasn't crazy, preferred Clinton
2000: old enough to vote, didn't, cried after the Supreme Court elected Dubya
2004: voted Kerry because Dubya is a nutjob
2008: How I pray that we will actually have a fair election with a full audit and paper trail and plenty of machines instead of something like the past two Presidential fiascoes.
posted by anonymouscoward at 12:28 A.M. EST on Sat May 21, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
