"FMguru, I realize that you think the US election system is all the democracy a country can stand. I don't."
Not only are your amazing psychic powers in error (perhaps the "perverse imp" which advises you on voting choice speaks with multiple voices? I understand they have powerful medications to help treat that, now.), but your defintion of democracy is flawed, unless by "democracy" you mean "changing the rules by fiat to the benefit of a single political actor in direct contravention of the expressed democratic will of the people of Arizona". That sounds kind of like the exact opposite of democracy to me. But I don't have an imaginary monster living in my head, giving me political advice, so what do I know?
I suspect that you and Iyad Allawi could have a very agreeable discuss ion about democracy.
All sorts of little shoestring parties have managed to get on the ballot in Arizona. If the militia paranoids of the American Independent Party and the meditating goofballs of the Natural Law Party can manage to get on the ballot, while Ralph Nader cannot, then the it seems that the problem is with Ralph's political organization, and not the ballot access laws. Moreover, if you think the ballow access laws in Arizona are some kind of draconian impediment to democracy, then you can campaign to change them. Oh, but that would require hard work and sustained effort. Best to just crab about it on a message board, in as whiny and self-martyring a fashion as you can muster.
And wait for the mailman to deliver your brown shirt and your shiny, shiny black boots.
"Right. Nader has no real issues. He's just a good-looking, sweet-talking, smart-dressing guy. That's why all the girls want him, and all the boys want to be him."
It's rather sad that you think this is, in any way, a response that does you credit in an argument. But that does appear to be the absolute limit of your rhetorical skills, doesn't it? Restating the other guy's case in exaggerated terms, and then posting it as if the inherent ridiculousness constitutes a withering takedown all by itself.
Free tip: it doesn't. You might find that actually responding to other people's arguments is a much more useful method of making your point.
"And now I'm slamming the door and running as fast down the hall as I possibly can"
Another free tip: running away from an argument isn't particularly convincing, and bragging about how you're running away doesn't do much to strengthen your argument.
Instead of playing these feeble little games, why not try responding to the meat of my posts - like explaining how holding Nader to the same (democratically-established) ballot access rules as ever other candidate/party is a betrayal of the tenets of democracy?
>>>Stupid Greens and third-party candidates who think that because Democrats name themselves after democrats, they might actually think democracy matters.
Democracy is being observed. The ballot access laws in Arizona were (presumably) passed by democratically-elected state legislators and are enforced and administered by democratically-elected county registrars. All of the big and small parties in Arizona have managed to obey them for the past diddley-ump elections. The laws are clear and easy to follow - you have to have X valid signatures submitted by Y date to get your name on the ballot. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Reformers, American Independents, and everyone else have been able to follow those laws. Only the Naderites - because of catastrophically bad political organization - can't manage to follow the rules. And they expect everyone to just throw away all the rules (that everyone else was able to follow) and make a special exception for them - or else it's a crime against democracy, and they're going to hold their breath and turn blue.
If Naderites don't like the ballot access laws, they're free to lobby to change them. Raise money, pressure legislators, hold rallies, write letters to the editor, form alliances, support candidates, run ads - you know, like how everyone else with an issue they want addressed goes about doing things in a democracy.
Apparently the Naderite definition of "democracy" is that they don't have to follow the same laws and rules as all the other parties, and that it is absolutely unconscienable to expect them to do so. Perhaps the next step in Naderite "democracy" will be to dress in brown shirts and march through town squares. They've already got the whole cult-of-personality thing down cold.
Nader could have built an organization, lobbied for ballot access, raised funds, gathered signatures, formed a party, and done all the other things that lets the American Independents and Greens and Libertarians and Natural Lawites and Constitutionalists and Peace and Freedom parties get on the ballot, but he decided to throw his hat into the ring at the last minute and expected that the doors would miraculously fly open in all 50 states to him. Everyone else has to follow ballot access laws; why should St. Ralph be cut a break? If having to organize 50 different ballot access campaigns on short notice is so onerous, he should have started his campaign months (years?) earlier. Well, he would have if he wanted to be a serious candidate for office, and not some self-absorbed grudgeholding spoiler gadfly.
It is rather rich the way Naderites stand around with shocked expressions on their faces when Democrats don't run to their aid. The fact that they're RUNNING THEIR OWN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE and COMPETING FOR THE SAME VOTERS as the Democratic party never seems to dawn on them. Why are those corrupt corporate sellout phony Democrats being such meanies? It is to wonder.
Why should the Democrats go out of their way to help Nader gain ballot access? They're trying to win an election. Nader certainly isn't in this to do the Democrats any favors - he's made his opinion of the Democratic party and its nominee very clear. Why should the Democrats lift one finger to empower someone who is their sworn enemy?
I must say that I am impressed by your principles. Your vote is going to be determined by the state of the polls on the day of the election, the mutterings of the "perverse imp" in your soul, and whether or not some anonymous dude on a message board hurts your feelings. Those are some principles! You're a regular rock of Gibraltar, aren't you?
(And you "had resigned yourself" to voting for Kerry. Poor Will! Forced to choose between unpalatable alternative. You're just too good for this flawed, petty, small-minded world of ours, aren't you?)
Sounds like somebody needs a hug!
Will - you could always write Nader's name in. Or, maybe you could organize the fraction of the percentage of the state's population to collect the signatures that would put Nader on the ballot. If Nader represents anything more than a tiny, crankish sliver of the population, it should be easy to do so.
Or, I suppose, you could sulk about the unfairness of it all on a public message board. Didn't all the great progressive triumphs of the modern age - ending slavery, defeating naziism, establishing labor unions, overturning apartheid, winning the fight for civil rights - come about through posting snotty little messages? Of course they did.
Hail, the brave progressive warrior!
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 6 |
Total: 6 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by FMguru:
Show all comments by FMguru.