Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Fahrenheit 9/11: Michael Moore's Masterpiece -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (1291)	6/30/2004 11:32:26 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2772

No, it's not OK if the Democrats do it. I don't agree with anyone using undemocratic means to suppress other parties. I've been alive long enough to see both parties do it. Remember how the Republicans were trying to keep McCain off the ballot in New York a few years ago? Both parties are in fact equally guilty of maintaining their power by supressing third parties. It's not OK when the Democrats do it. It's anti-democratic no matter who's doing it. I agree that it's wrong for the Democrats to keep Nader off the ballot. But, Nader also has to live within the laws passed by the major parties (that's how they control the process) and get on the ballot in a legal manner. It's certainly OK for a major party to challenge a 3rd party's legal means of obtaining ballot access. It's their right to ensure that their competition is following the laws. What 3rd parties really need to do is petition the states to change the laws to make them easier to gain ballot access. Some states have very onerous ballot access laws.