Quote:
Originally posted by: LRB
I don't see how any logical person not blinded by party loyalty could not see that what the democrats are doing is attempting to disenfranchise voters. An important right of every voters is to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. The dems are working hard to insure that thousands of voters won't be able to vote for the candidate of their choice by removing that candidate from the ballot. It doesn't surprise me that Mavdog supports this unethical and unjust practice because unlike KG I really didn't expect better of him. It wouldn't surprise me that Mavdog would support any thing the dems would do not matter how unethical it is. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if Mavdog would fail disapprove of any illegal actions by the dems as well.
Mavdog have you ever dissapproved of anything the democrats have done? I can't remember seeing a single instance if you have.
|
too funny. IMO in the dictionary under "partisan" it should state "LRB"...
A voter is not disenfranchised by the State requiring candidates for office to meet specific criteria to be placed on a ballot. If that were the case then voters have been disenfranchised since the very first election in our country. They haven't.
The voter can always write in a candidate, therefore no one is denied the right to "vote for the candidate of their choice".
The DNC is seeking the equitable application of the law, pure and simple. Nader should follow the rule of law in having his name placed on a ballot just as all other candidates are required to do. Why should Nader be treated any differently? He shouldn't. Nader should have the same rights as any other candidates and the same responsibility to meet the law's requirements as well.
I am baffled how anyone could argue that Nader should be treated differently than other candidates are treated.