Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Duopoly Voter Suppression Update

Posted 7 years ago on March 3, 2013, 5:18 p.m. EST by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In case anyone doesn't know about Ballot-Access.org. ... Its an incredible site. Tons of great info on American's struggles to get actual representation into the system, not just the corporate puppets.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago


It's a one man duopoly!


[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Ballot Access in an incredible site, and Richard Winger is an incredible person. Anyone who is interested in getting really involved in electoral politics should check it out, tons of info from coast to coast.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 7 years ago

Being educated as to the efforts to suppress the vote (voter id laws, ending early voting, striking down voting rights act, etc) and electoral college schemes is critical to reduce the control of the party duopoly.

I would also add that independent 3rd parties would benefit if we implemented mandatory voting for all citizens.

Expanding voter turn out is a great fear of the corp 1% oligarchs.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Aww cute. You're still trying to push your neolibe(R)tarian friends down our throats.

Koch whores for everyone?

I've been asking you for a very LONG time to show all the voter suppression on the "left".

You've failed, in fact in those days you minimized it at every opportunity.

Just like you ignored the fact that it's felony in Fl. to take a photo of farms.

[-] -3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

I didnt see you at the last two meetings last month? Maybe I missed you.


Only the most miserable of trolls would have something bad to say about ballot access issues.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

I didn't see you at the candlelight vigils for Trayvon.

I didn't see you complaining about those who pushed for voter suppression either.

Not a word about gerrymandering.

Strange that you would only take up that banner under the auspices of libe(R)tarianism.

And then the guy who shamelessly calls the 99% asses, would accuse someone else of being a troll.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

You didnt see me at the voter suppression rallies because you werent there, troll.

You didnt see me at Trayvon, and you didnt see me chewing out the press over Robert Gary's death either. Some here did, you didnt. And I dont expect you to, you live near Detroit not Tampa.

As far as gerrymandering, check out some Kunich takes.

Now go back to attacking activists all over the internet. Shameful.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

I watched you minimize voter suppression here for months.

I watched you minimize, or completely ignore union busting at every turn.

I'll ask you more more time.

If you support unions at WallMart?

What are you doing to repeal "right to work"?

I'm not asking for Kucinich's take, I'm asking for yours and it would help if you could spell his name.

Just because you claim to be an activist, doesn't mean your an activist for the 99%.

You call them asses.

Which is pretty much what the Koch's think of them too.

[-] -2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Where were you when I was flyering for WalMart walkout? Sitting on your computer attacking people whom youve never met.


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

What good is it going to do them in a "right to work" State?

You've never answered that question.

In fact you rarely answer any questions at all.

[-] -1 points by michaeljamess (1) 6 years ago

You didnt see me at the voter suppression rallies because you werent there, troll.

FIFA 14 PS3 Coins

[-] -3 points by AlwaysIntoSomething (42) 6 years ago

Via Ballot-Access.org


On November 25, the New Mexico Constitution Party filed a lawsuit in State Supreme Court, asking to be put back on the 2014 ballot. The Secretary of State had removed that party, and the Green Party, on July 18. If the Constitution Party wins the case, it is very likely the Green Party will benefit as well. The Constitution Party of New Mexico v Duran, 34431.

The law on when a party loses its qualified status is ambiguous, but it has been interpreted for the last 15 years to mean that after a party submits a petition, it gets the next two elections. But the current Secretary of State set aside those precedents and removed both parties, even though they had both petitioned in 2012.

The lawsuit, so far at least, does not focus on the point that precedent has been disregarded. Instead, it points out that the law requires the Secretary of State to notify a party’s officers no later than March 15 of the odd year following an election at which the party has been removed. The Secretary of State’s notice to the officers was more than four months late. Also, the law requires the Secretary of State to send a letter to the registered members of such parties, informing them that their party is no longer on the ballot. The law requires this letter to be sent by April 29, but such letters were not sent to Greens and Constitution Party members until November 1.