Originally posted by baseball101
... no offense but i have NEVER seen any proof that there has been an actual carrying out of plans drawn up by the members of ATS ... ya it's nice thinking about what we could do, but it'd be nice if we actually DID IT. Don't ask me how to do it because i have no clue ... i personally think threads like these are getting old fast ... nothing ever gets accomplished ... ideas get thrown around and possibly even a plan is drawn up ... but nothing ever comes from it ... they're just like every other thread ... they'll die down in a month or so...
[edit on 23-10-2008 by baseball101]
In Australia, any person/group can start a political party. I am unsure how this is world-wide, but that could certainly be a start. A 'group' would be better than running as independent, as what you say will have more behind it.
Among the world's democracies, the United States has by far the worst ballot access situation. Each state writes its own ballot access laws, even for federal office. Sometimes these laws clearly are intentionally written to force one- or two-party domination. Since there is no single standard for the whole nation, the public and even the media are generally ignorant about ballot access laws.
Georgia in 1943 required new party and independent candidates to submit a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters in order to get on the ballot for any office! Previously, any party could get on the ballot just by requesting it. (And all petition signers are subject to subpoena to determine if they actually signed.) Result: since 1943, zero third-party candidates have ever managed even to get on the ballot for a Georgia U.S. House of Representatives seat (in about 800 races total).
The ballot access laws for third parties and independent candidates have been very severe since 1931. Since then only two third party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and only one for the U.S. Senate have managed to get on the ballot. (And there has been no third party or independent candidate on the ballot for Governor of Florida since 1920.) As of 2005, a filing fee of 7% of the annual salary of the office is also required unless the candidate is a pauper, while a third party or independent candidate for any statewide office (other than US president) needs 196,255 valid signatures – beyond what any independent candidate in any state in the USA has ever obtained.
To run for Texas Governor as an Independent in 2006, Richard S. "Kinky" Friedman had to acquire 45000 signatures in a short time, all of them notarized. He accomplished that, but found it almost impossible and claims it had never been done before.
New parties, to get on ballot, require by 1971 law a petition signed by a number of voters exceeding 7% of the last vote cast. A court held that unconstitutional in 1977, so they changed it to 3%. Also, the petition must be completed in four months during the odd year before an election year. No political party has ever succeeded in getting on the Arkansas ballot, under either rule.
This one is an elegant "catch-22." Third party and independent candidates for office (other than US president) must circulate their petition before the primary. It is a crime for any petition circulator to approach anyone without saying "If you sign my petition, you cannot vote in the primary." Furthermore, it is impossible for third party or independent candidates (not running for US president) to ever know in advance if they have enough valid signatures because if anyone who signs a candidate's petition then votes in a primary, the signature of that person is invalid. For candidates, it is impossible to know who will actually vote in the primary, and it is too late to get signatures after the primary. Also: petition circulators cannot leave their home precinct.
1961 law requires petition to be completed within a 2-week period.
1941 law requires all petition signers to be published in one newspaper in each county in the state, by the collector of the petitions.
"Sore loser laws" designed to foster major-party rule and prevent dissent
In 2006, nationwide attention was focused on the Democratic Party primary for the Connecticut senate race. Newcomer Ned Lamont beat out incumbent senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman then decided to continue to run as an independent, leading to a 3-way race between Lamont(D), Lieberman(I) and Alan Schlesinger(R). This made it a "spoiler" scenario likely in which Lieberman and Lamont would split the vote allowing the Republican Schlesinger (who was less popular than either and had been involved in big money gambling under the fake name "Alan Gold," causing State GOP Chair George Gallo to moan – quoted in the Hartford Courant – "Our mistake is that we only vetted candidates using their real names, not aliases"; the Courant further reported that Schlesinger had been sued twice by casinos to collect unpaid gambling debt) to win.
Actually, after all the top Republicans in sight endorsed Lieberman and abandoned Schlesinger, it became pretty much a 2-man race between L & L.
Lost in the furor surrounding this – which the US press kept remarkably silent about – was the fact that in most of America Lieberman would not even have had the option of pressing on as an independent. According to Richard Winger in Ballot Access news, 46 states have either explicit "sore loser laws" or simultaneous filing deadlines making a post-primary shift impossible for any candidate other than a presidential one. Only Connecticut, Iowa, New York and Vermont allow such a loophole for "sore losers". The previous 2 sentences were quoted from Troy Schneider's New York Times op-ed 16 July 2006. And in 11 states it is not permitted for anybody who is (or recently was) a member of a political party, to run independent for any seat!
These laws are of course specifically designed to safeguard the two major parties from those annoying "spoiler scenarios" of precisely this sort. But – is that fair and democratic? Lieberman, according to polls conducted in the very same week as his primary defeat, actually had more support Connecticut-wide, than either Lamont or Schlesinger! But under this sort of law, just because it was convenient for party leaders to brand Lieberman a "sore loser," the most popular choice of the voters would actually be prevented from running! This is the most undemocratic possible outrage!
Originally posted by seejanerun
My understanding is that you can want to over throw the government, you just can't voice or try to do it through violent means. I have yet to hear anyone state they want to achieve this violently.
I usually try to stay away from these types of threads, but I think it is wrong to say you can't want the current government or form of government out. Thomas Jefferson said that we need a revolution every 75 years because things have gotten so screwed up by that time that it can't be fixed. (what he said but not verbatim) So even the forefathers knew something at sometime would be wrong.
Just my 2 cents
Do you realize that with 700 billion dollars worth of bail out money you could give every American citizen including children 300,000 dollars????