Makes more sense than most. Good idea.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ventura-...l-parties.html
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-13-2012, 12:31 AM
- JD Barleycorn
- 06-13-2012, 12:35 AM
Sounds great but unworkable and unconstitutional if made into a law. You have a first admentment right to freedom of association which would include parties. That is why Ventura was a special operator and not a lawyer.
- WTF
- 06-13-2012, 07:24 AM
The one simple reform would be on every ballot, don’t list the gang names or the gang symbols.” Ventura stated.
“They make it far too easy. If you’re conservative, you don’t have to know the candidate’s name. You walk in and look for Republican. If you’re a liberal, you don’t need to know the candidate’s name. You look for Democrat. How about removing all of that and just print the candidates’ names? Then, it becomes to the voter. The voter must then educate themselves. What does John Smith stand for? Make the parties like political action committees. They can still endorse the same as the teachers union, the police union, fire, whoever. They can endorse candidates. But let’s remove the party names from the ballots.”
“They make it far too easy. If you’re conservative, you don’t have to know the candidate’s name. You walk in and look for Republican. If you’re a liberal, you don’t need to know the candidate’s name. You look for Democrat. How about removing all of that and just print the candidates’ names? Then, it becomes to the voter. The voter must then educate themselves. What does John Smith stand for? Make the parties like political action committees. They can still endorse the same as the teachers union, the police union, fire, whoever. They can endorse candidates. But let’s remove the party names from the ballots.”
- Whirlaway
- 06-13-2012, 07:29 AM
A completely nutty idea, that is both unconstitutional and unworkable.
I am surprised that some on here would promote it, given their professed fidelity to constitutional principles.
I am surprised that some on here would promote it, given their professed fidelity to constitutional principles.
- dilbert firestorm
- 06-13-2012, 08:42 AM
nutty idea? Its a great idea.
it would level the playing field between 3rd parties and main parties.
wasn't there a town that actually didn't list the party names on the ballot?
it would level the playing field between 3rd parties and main parties.
wasn't there a town that actually didn't list the party names on the ballot?
- joe bloe
- 06-13-2012, 09:11 AM
If it's unconstitional, it's moot, unless we amend the constitution.
- WTF
- 06-13-2012, 09:34 AM
Why is it unconstitutional to not put party affiliation on the ballot?
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-13-2012, 10:09 AM
Good question, WTF. I don't think it's unconstitutional. People can still associate, but the names of the parties would not be on the ballot. There's nothing unconstitutional about it.
- JD Barleycorn
- 06-13-2012, 11:27 AM
The democrats would fight you to the death on this. Don't believe me? Remember a couple of years ago... a town in South Carolina I believe was going to do exactly that. They were going to list candidates but not parties. Faster than you can stonewall Eric Holder filed a lawsuit against the town. His eventual explanation was that minorities (black democrats) would not know who to vote for.
Up here in Kansas City we have non party elections but all the candidates are democrats. The local rag won't even mention the name of the GOP candidates until they have to. The left knows who they are (I think they smell each others butts when they meet) and they will support the "right" people.
I don't worry about the plurality of the right. They have always been shown to know more about their candidates than the democrats. Especially someone like Obama who nobody knew anything about.
Up here in Kansas City we have non party elections but all the candidates are democrats. The local rag won't even mention the name of the GOP candidates until they have to. The left knows who they are (I think they smell each others butts when they meet) and they will support the "right" people.
I don't worry about the plurality of the right. They have always been shown to know more about their candidates than the democrats. Especially someone like Obama who nobody knew anything about.
- WTF
- 06-13-2012, 01:20 PM
Yawn....your nativity is showing again.
- CJ7
- 06-13-2012, 01:39 PM
The democrats would fight you to the death on this. Don't believe me? Remember a couple of years ago... a town in South Carolina I believe was going to do exactly that. They were going to list candidates but not parties. Faster than you can stonewall Eric Holder filed a lawsuit against the town. His eventual explanation was that minorities (black democrats) would not know who to vote for.
Up here in Kansas City we have non party elections but all the candidates are democrats. The local rag won't even mention the name of the GOP candidates until they have to. The left knows who they are (I think they smell each others butts when they meet) and they will support the "right" people.
I don't worry about the plurality of the right. They have always been shown to know more about their candidates than the democrats. Especially someone like Obama who nobody knew anything about. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
you just worry about creating horseshit topics and blame Obie for people with physical problems ...
I digress ...
there won be any dems ... there wont be any repubs
no parties fighting each other to the death ... no label that automatically divides simple minded people "just because" ... no party line parrots that sign pledges ... only people with individual ideas that you either support or reject, then vote for or not.
throw in term limits for congress and no pork in proposed legislation and you might have something
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-13-2012, 03:04 PM
- CJ7
- 06-13-2012, 04:03 PM
- fetishfreak
- 06-13-2012, 04:55 PM
The town I grew up in did not have political parties on the ballot for local and county elections. That was state wide. It would not be unconstitutional because it would not violate the right to assemble. George Washington warned against forming political parties and was not a member of one under either election that he won. Revisionists have stated that he was a member of the Federalist party and you may see him associated with it but it would not be true.
The establishment of the 2 party system is a direct result of the two parties working together to eliminate compitition by making it more difficult to form a third party. The notion of removing parties from the ballot would make it such that primaries would go away and then the final ballot would have more choices. The disadvantage would be that elections would end up in the house more frequently, since it would be unlikely that anyone would win a majority of the electoral vote. Our constitution would allow it, our mindset would have to change. Imagine if the current election was to be held with no party affiliation how many candidates would try to win.
The establishment of the 2 party system is a direct result of the two parties working together to eliminate compitition by making it more difficult to form a third party. The notion of removing parties from the ballot would make it such that primaries would go away and then the final ballot would have more choices. The disadvantage would be that elections would end up in the house more frequently, since it would be unlikely that anyone would win a majority of the electoral vote. Our constitution would allow it, our mindset would have to change. Imagine if the current election was to be held with no party affiliation how many candidates would try to win.
- Laz
- 06-13-2012, 05:41 PM
I like the idea. I vote for the person not the party so there is no reason for the party to be listed. The party listing only supports those to lazy to be knowledgeable about the candidate and those people don't add value to the voting process.