Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Are the Dems Committing Vote Fraud?

Posted by Joshua Holland at 12:00 AM on June 24, 2006.


It's troubling when big-'D' Dems stand against small-'d' democracy -- but they seem to be trying to keep a peace candidate off the ballot.

The last thing Melissa Bean, the freshman Rep from Illinois' 8th CD, wants to see leading up to November's election is Bill Scheurer.

Scheurer, whom Bean defeated in the 2004 primary en route to becoming the first Democrat to take the seat since the New Deal era, is running as an independent this time around. His platform is simple: get out of Iraq, balance the budget and provide universal health coverage -- in that order.

For Congressional Dems, holding the seat is crucial to retaking the House; for the GOP, the seat is a prime pick-up opportunity. The DCCC and the NRCC are both expected to pour tons of cash into the district. Both view Scheurer as a potential "spoiler" for Bean. The question is: to what lengths are the Dems willing to go to keep him from getting the 13,950 signatures required to get on the ballot?

That's where our story gets fishy.

In mid-May, a man claiming to be Anthony Constantine from AR Consulting got in touch with the Scheurer campaign and pitched the firm's services: for a fee, they'd help collect the needed signatures. They met, and Scheurer hired the firm.

Anthony Constantine's day job is in the Chicago office of Rep. Dan Lipinski, who, in 2004, won the seat his father had held since Ronald Reagan's first term.

According to Scheurer, his campaign got a progress report every week from AR Consulting telling them how many signatures were in the bag. At the beginning of this week, they were to meet and exchange the first payment for the first batch of signatures. Scheurer was confident that he would have about 18,000 signatures in all by the July 3 filing deadline -- the required number plus some extra to withstand the inevitable challenges from the Bean camp.

At the last minute, Scheurer got a call postponing the meeting -- the man claiming to be Constantine said he had a desperately sick relative in the hospital. Messages and e-mails in the days following went unreturned until, finally, Constantine returned a call after being threatened with legal action.

Constantine says it's the first he's heard of any of this. He never met with Scheurer, AR Consulting never cut a deal with his campaign and he definitely doesn't have the thousands of signatures that Scheurer needs to get on the ballot. It's a hard blow for the peace candidate's long-shot candidacy.

There's no evidence linking any of this directly to Bean, or to the Democratic leadership. But Illinois Dems have come out in force against Scheurer -- DCCC Chair Rahm Emmanuel has been particularly vocal.

The only thing that's certain is that Scheurer finds himself missing several thousand precious signatures just ten days before the filing deadline.

The race is a tricky one for progressives. Scheurer has little chance of winning -- he's raised less than $50,000 dollars -- and a good chance of taking just enough votes from Bean to elect Republican David McSweeney.

But Bean is one of the House Democrats most beholden to corporate interests and most likely to vote with the Republicans on the worst items on their agenda. Bean is one of the "CAFTA 15" -- the 15 Dems who were crucial to the passage of the terrible Central American Free Trade Agreement -- and voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, the repeal of the Estate Tax, curbs on class action suits and, last week, was one of 42 Dems to vote for the Republicans' More of the Same in Iraq Resolution. She gets an 'F' from the Drum Major Institute for her many votes against the middle-class, but won the Chamber of Commerce's "Spirit of enterprise" award last year, for voting "more often with the chamber than any other Illinois Democrat and even a few points ahead of a downstate Republican, Rep. Timothy Johnson of Urbana."

But wherever you come down on the question of Scheurer's candidacy, this is an issue of small 'd' democracy. Scheurer tells me he's going to demand an investigation, and that he'll run as a write-in candidate if need be.

If you're in the Chicago area, and believe that voters should ultimately decide elections, you can send a message that these kinds of games are unacceptable by going to Scheurer's rally on Sunday and helping him make up those missing signatures. The Rally's at noon at the Lake Villa Public Library, 1001 E. Grand Avenue in Lindenhurst.

Digg!

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at AlterNet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Different year, same DLCrap
Posted by: AlanSmithee on Jun 23, 2006 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats were fixing ballots and supressing antiwar candidates all through 2004. Why should this year be any different? Why even bother reporting on it? Aren't "pwogwessives" all about winning?

No, really, WTF do you care if antiwar candidates are shafted in favor of prowar globalist republicrats? Just shut up and vote for whoever has a 'd' after their name, just like KO$ tells you to. Don't even fucking pretend to be independent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Different year, same DLCrap Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Different year, same DLCrap Posted by: AlanSmithee
» RE: Different year, same DLCrap Posted by: Blanktivist
» RE: Different year, same DLCrap Posted by: Jackrabbit
» Paranoia? Your soaking in it! Posted by: AlanSmithee
» Enjoying your war? Posted by: AlanSmithee
» RE: Different year, same DLCrap Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Too much Democrat Kool-Aid, Josh? Posted by: CounterCorp
» RE: Different year, same DLCrap Posted by: Jackrabbit
» RE: Different year, same DLCrap Posted by: AlanSmithee
» RE: Different year, same DLCrap Posted by: Elmowilcox
» I agree, you're pretty sad. Posted by: AlanSmithee
3rd party screw
Posted by: YogiBear on Jun 23, 2006 11:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In North Carolina, in order to run an Independent presidental candidate one needs over 93,000 verified signatures also. Only, it didn't used to be that way. It was 10,000 until 1982 when an indie candidate ran for office, when they upped it to 51,000. And then, after Perot and ran for president, the local Dems and Reps got together again and upped the minimum again to supposedly ensure that only serious canduidates were fielded.

That they don't consider that a guy like Perot who took 19% of the nationwide vote "serious" belies whatever honesty they think they might have. This is about power, and though I tend to find the republicans far more immoral than their counterparts on most social and libertariain issues, both parties are chock full of insidious, power-hungry, democracy-cheating snakes that wipe their backsides with our constitutional principles daily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Empathy from Illinois
Posted by: Cal Skinner on Jun 23, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Republican who has been the victim of dirty tricks in Illinois (and the guy went to Club Fed partly because of it), I can empathize with Bill Scheurer.

I have posted part of your article on my McHenryCountyBlog.com and a statewide blog called Illinoize.

The signature requirement in Illinois is probably the highest in theworld. When I ran for governor as a Libertarian in 2002, we got twice the number of required signatures and the Republicans still mounted a challenge...according to one source...with today's Republican gubernatorial candidate's state treasurer's office employees on the taxpayers' dime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another of the CAFTA 15 Being Challenged
Posted by: fishsandwich on Jun 23, 2006 3:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ginny Welsch is taking on another of the CAFTA 15 in Tennessee's 5th district. Jim Cooper is just like Bean - voted for CAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, tort reform, the patriot act, this silly resolution to stay the course in Iraq. Welsch is the real Democrat in the race. www.welschforcongress.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CAFTA 15/ Dirtiest 9
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Jun 23, 2006 3:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the time of the CAFTA vote, I argued that focusing on the CAFTA 15 in the House was letting the ten Dem Senators who voted for it off the hook.

I also thought Sirota's look at which of the CAFTA 15 also voted for the bankruptcy and class action "reform" bills was valuable. If you combine those three key votes, you get a list of the dirtiest nine Dems:

Melissa Bean (IL)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Greg Meeks (NY)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
John Tanner (TN)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CAFTA 15/ Dirtiest 9 Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: CAFTA 15/ Dirtiest 9 Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: CAFTA 15/ Dirtiest 9 Posted by: Lincoln fan
The "problem" for progressives
Posted by: nathanwest on Jun 23, 2006 10:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The race is a tricky one for progressives. Scheurer has little chance of winning -- he's raised less than $50,000 dollars -- and a good chance of taking just enough votes from Bean to elect Republican David McSweeney."

So you all would *rather* McSweeney be elected? A rabid pro-life, creationist, pro-war, "I'll support George Bush 100%" right-winger is preferable to Melissa Bean?

I don't know about you, but I live in the 8th District and I'm scared to death of McSweeney.

In an ideal world, we'd all support Bill (even though he is pro-life). But Bill can't win -- even you admit that. He can only make Melissa lose. And McSweeney win. God help us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Four legs good, two legs bad Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Four legs good, two legs bad Posted by: nathanwest
» RE: The "problem" for progressives Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The "problem" for progressives Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: The "problem" for progressives Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The "problem" for progressives Posted by: Joshua Holland
a long, long way
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 24, 2006 3:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This all goes to show that America is a long, long way from being a real democracy. We can't become a real democracy until we prosecute all those of every party who have done vote tampering and other methods of vote fraud. We have to have laws with real teeth in them to get to a real democracy free of numerous types of vote tampering and fraud. Regardless of party all those who tamper with the vote process need to be prosecuted and removed from political tampering. America will continue to bleed until we get rid of political greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Jun 24, 2006 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporations have an iron grip on American politics and the only way out of it is for us to put our red shirts back on. It is time to take to the streets like the latino's did. We seem to have forgotten that the twelve year war in Viet Nam was the product of both Democrats and Republicans. Honest politicians like Kucinich and Conyers are swamped. Our local progressive Bob Filner has just voted for the repeal of the estate tax. When queried about this his office explained that it was log rolling. I am taking a razor blade and chiseling his bumper sticker off of my van. No enemy is more dangerous than a traitor in one's own camp.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Refuse to vote for the "lesser of the evils"
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Jun 24, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a classic case of what I consider to be the big problem in our system. The voters of one party, in this case the Democrats, are being forced to vote for the lesser of the evils. What advantage is it to the Democratic voters to retake the house with Republican Lites? What are our votes worth if the only candidates we can vote for don't represent us?

I see only one way to overcome this problem. That is to form a grassroots movement to dictate the platforms of both parties. We can force the parties to choose sides on the issues important to us. We can make them compete for our votes. We can force them to listen to the will of the people.

The time to make them vie for our votes is now, before the election. This is the only time our votes have power.

The Lincoln Initiative is a non-partisan grassroots movement with the objective of making "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality. It uses the successful tactics of the labor unions. That is make your demand known, (your side of your most important issue) to the people who can grant it, (both political parties), with a show of strength (the number of members) with an "or else" (a write-in vote for "Honest Abe")

Just as both parties fear a third party "stealing" their votes they will both fear a strong movement "stealing" their votes.
This idea has the added feature that each party will know how to keep the voters from voting against them on each issue, because we will tell them.

Join The Lincoln Initiaitve. You have little to lose and a Republic to gain. Click on Join us today

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grubnednarb
Posted by: Grubnednarb on Jun 24, 2006 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without endorsing chicanery or dirty tricks, or Illinois stringent ballot access requirements, I am not sympathetic to Scheurer's candidacy. It is extremely ill-advised.

Bean defeated a political troglodyte, Phil Crane, in a Republican district. She has been the #1 target on the Congessional GOP hit list since the day she defeated Crain. Since her district is fairly conservative, she can't afford to vote "progressively" on many issues if she wants to be re-elected.

She's a moderate Democrat in a conservative Republican District. Her opponent, McSweeney will have a zero voting record on all labor issues, and will support the Bush administration 100 % of the time on the war and everything else.

Anyone with any understanding of practical politics understands why Bean votes the way she does on particular issues, whether we agree with those votes or not. Scheuer's "principled" candidacy is a classic example of progressives cutting off their noses to spite their face.

The best possible thing we could do to check the excesses of the Bush adminstartion and future Republican adminstrations is to become the majority party in the House of Representatives. Map and money are the critical factors preventing a Democratic takeover of the House. We can take over the house in 2006 or 2008, but only if we work hard to elect moderate Democats in conservative districts.

I am a bona fide progressive and Democratic party activist , who attended the anti-war demonstration last September in Washington and despises evrything about George Bush and his domestic and foreign policies. As such, I'd be proud to particpate in a petition challenge to keep Scheurer off the ballot because a relatively small number of votes could be the difference in this election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grubnednarb Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Grubnednarb Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Hallelujah! Posted by: harpy
» RE: Grubnednarb Posted by: dadzilla
I've been saying all along
Posted by: feduphoosier on Jun 24, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Its all of us against the greedy corporations. We have to stop thinking 'Democrat' and 'Republican' and start thinking about which person will represent us against the corporate takeover of our government. If those elected to Congress won't reform campaign finance then we the people should consider getting smart (I know, I know...) and voting for the candidate with the least money, and the most heart. In the end, short of Diebold cheating, we are responsible for devouring the media glitz.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're right Posted by: Lincoln fan
Much Simpler Path
Posted by: gradioc on Jun 24, 2006 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is really no need to go to all the trouble of getting a progressive candidate on the ballot. It is easier just to cast your vote directly for the republican. It has the same effect and cuts out the middle man. Thanks for eight years of Bush you Nader voting purist idiots. Vote for your perfect candidate and give the House another Bushbot. I do not support dirty tricks by anyone for any reason, but the mindset that causes people to support these boutique candidates is beyond me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You got it right Posted by: harpy
» RE: You got it (almost) right Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Much Simpler Path Posted by: Jackrabbit
» RE: Much Simpler Path Posted by: Lincoln fan
» the mindset Posted by: antiapathy
Need for Instant Runoff Elections
Posted by: wolfcry on Jun 24, 2006 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our two party system, given the rise of corporate power in politics, is now anti-democratic. Yet the negative, unintended effect of 3rd and 4th party candidates under our current voting system is hard to deny. We certainly need to have better choices in candidates beyond those the R’s and D’s typically provide. A realistic and achievable improvement would be the instant runoff election. Vote for your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices in the same election. If your 1st choice is not a contender then your 2nd choice will be counted, and on and on until a candidate receives over 50% of the vote. This diversifies the candidate pool and the political discourse without your vote contributing to the election of a candidate on the other side of the political spectrum. Instant Runoff elections, along with significant campaign finance reform, will someday help mend our sickly democracy, and the sooner the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: wolfcry Posted by: Lincoln fan
Cheating the cheaters
Posted by: American Reflections on Jun 24, 2006 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's pretty well known that there was serious chicanery on the part of the Republicans in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Florida with its hanging chads and Republican "hit lists" designed to prevent qualified voters from voting, uncounted votes....the list goes on....and Diebold with it's paperless electronic voting machines, promising to deliver Ohio to the Pubs long before the election was even held, I'm tempted to say, "What took the Democrats so long?"

Still, cheating is as wrong for the Democrats as it is for the Republicans. We need honest elections, and although I'm not sure we will ever get them again, I still have to say that this needs to be thoroughly investigated, and action taken if fraud is involved.

It's pretty hard to criticize pigs if you're rolling around in the mud with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why did Scheurer run as an independent this time around?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 24, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's too bad we don't have a parliamentary system in Congress, but right now it's a two party system. The Democrats can't hold hearings on all the major crimes of the Republican Administration because they have no majority in either house.

So Scheurer could have run as a Democrat in the primary but why didn't he? One has to wonder where is funding is coming from (something that this article failed to mention, but that's normal media practice - when's the last time you saw a political story with a detailed analysis of the funding each candidate recieved?). Republicans have been caught funding Greens on numerous occasions; they claim that the Democrats do the same thing with Libertarians.

So, Melissa Bean is a Democrat in a heavily Republican district - she probably listens to what her constituents have to say to her (that's what a politicians supposed to do, right?) and so she's to the right of most Democrats. Oh well. The crazy warmongering Republicans want to unseat her, and they view Scheurer as the most likely tool. If she keeps her seat, impeachment hearings become a possibility with a Democratic House. What do you want? Do you want a strategy to end the war in Iraq and put this administration on trial, or do you want some more emotive and more empowering approach? I have to say I get disgusted when I hear progressive politicians reading phrases from saccharine self-help books. Ever hear of strategic planning?

So, why didn't this guy run as a Democratic candidate in the primary? Did polls indicate that he'd be trounced? In addition, just because someone set up some false contract with the guy - why did he do that? Why didn't he at least check out the person who was going to gather all these signatures? Maybe call him at his office and verify things? If he is that dumb, then I wouldn't want him as a political candidate anyway.

If you want to write about vote fraud, look into Ohio 2004 and Florida 2000 and the current plan to steal the 2008 and 2006 elections using rigged electronic voting machines. Here you have a hell of a lot more evidence then an apparently anecdotal tale involving a mysterious stranger that noone can find. Diebold, on the other hand, is in the phone book.

I can hear it now - "but we want politicians who are morally solid, who stand up for what they believe in, who can lead us to a new and glorious progressive future, and we need to vote our hopes, not our fears!". This is politics you are talking about, remember? Wake up and smell the bullshit! You think that someone is going to ride up and save you from fascism?

Take a look at the recent imigrant rights rally - did you see different groups of immigrants from different parts of the world attacking each other? NO! Despite all their differences, they managed to put them aside and work towards a common well-defined goal - you didn't seem them grandstanding for their own narrow interests.

Success requires good strategy, good diplomacy, and good execution. Now, write that on the blackboard a hundred times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it is up to we the people Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: They're All In On It Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Not so Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Impeachment hearings? Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: They're All In On It Posted by: AlanSmithee
» RE: They're All In On It Posted by: Joshua Holland
» ASmithee Posted by: vespasian01
» RE: ASmithee Posted by: AlanSmithee
» Smithee is a David duke supporter ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
WA. State
Posted by: EQdi on Jun 24, 2006 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark Wilson, Democratic candidate in Wa. State, is running on a program to end the war immediately, repeal the patriot act, a sustainable energy program to create jobs and universal healthcare for all taxpayers. Incumbant Marie Cantwell continues to support the war and big business. Candidates that are willing to gamble voters who are thoroughly disgusted wiith Washington and will not compromise on an issue that lies at the center of the corruption, will be surprised in November.

Many of us outraged will never repeat the mistakes of 2004. The "divided on Iraq" mantra, "we're a big tent" bullshit promises politics as usual. Run and be held accountable on the constituants policies not those of the bush administration or prepare to lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» we're a big tent Posted by: Lincoln fan
Still Locked Out!
Posted by: Steven Wanzell on Jun 24, 2006 2:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This one (Corporate Empire) party has subverted US democracy, and will stop at nothing to keep us (the public) out. Americans are still SO naive!

Steven Wanzell
artist/activist/ex-American
www.wanzellarts.com.ar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Still Locked Out! Posted by: Lincoln fan
Hallelujah indeed.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 24, 2006 11:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who is the #1 target of the GOP is worth supporting on basic principles, don't you think? That's a pretty simple strategy move, because it means the Democrats are cutting into the Republican base, who are probably getting disgusted with and suspicious of the intentions of Bush&Co. at this point (at least I hope so). The current batch of criminals has got to go, and just because I don't agree 100% with someone doesn't mean that that aren't larger issues that are more important then whatever disagreements might exist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Osama Bin Ladin? Posted by: Lincoln fan
Good Holland-Bad Chris Matthews
Posted by: vespasian01 on Jun 25, 2006 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a good gutsy article by Mr. Holland. I'm not sure whether he is formally a Democrat but Dems running for office would be wise to show some of this objectivity and consistency--along the lines of Ohio's Paul Hackett..

As for Chris Matthews of "Hardball," he again this Morning (Sunday 6.25) stated that Iran is "continuing" to forge ahead with its "nuclear weapons program." Doesn't this guy understand the influence he has on opinion? Pushing us toward another invasion while there is no evidence of such a program is both poor journalism and poor humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

paid petitioning
Posted by: ctguy on Jun 26, 2006 1:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fraud perpetrated against this guy erodes the rights of everyone, without question.
It is interesting, though, that this grassroots independent candidate with little money hired a firm to gather petition signatures for him, instead of using volunteer supporters. So much for the "grassroots."
Again, not to diminish the offense, but it also seems like bad campaign management to rely on weekly reports rather than actually see the petitioning operation at any point, or at least the signatures.
The fraud is inexcusable. But the story also indicates other problems with the "modern campaign," and with this candidate in particular.
It's a shame that the people in the 8th CD did not organize better and earlier to replace Bean with a credible, competent progressive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A SOLUTION
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jun 26, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, I get the drift here. Maybe I missed it, but does no-one realize there is a real solution to this dilemma?

The problem is plurality voting, which makes it possible to have officeholders, like Bill Clinton, who never get a majority of the votes, and penalizes new options because their votes effectively go to their opposite.

The Big Two parties love the spoiler effect, because it keeps out the competition - up to a point, where they become so disgusting that it merely screws up the political system.

So: eliminate the spoiler effect, with Instant Runoff Voting. In this system (stop here if you already know), voters rank their choices; if no-one gets a majority of the first choices, then you start eliminating the losers and counting those voters' 2nd choices - and so on, until you have an actual majority.

From the voters' point of view, you can vote for a Scheurer without electing the Repub. Melissa Bean may well win, but at least she's on notice - and it gives Scheurer a real chance.

Think about it: if the Democrats are so worried about "spoilers", why haven't they put in this system where they could?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A SOLUTION Posted by: oregoncharles
» the inverse solution Posted by: vespasian01
it depends on the district
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jun 28, 2006 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lets face it, that district isn't going to elect anyone to the left of a lieberman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]