What is Digg?31 Comments
- NICU, on 10/12/2007, -5/+52Carl Romanelli was a green party candidate who used a firm to collect signatures that is known to be corrupt. Those signatures were challenged in court and Romanelli lost his court case, not to mention committed fraud to get his name on a ballot. The JSM Inc. firm has caused other candidates to be thrown off ballots in other elections.
I think Romanelli had some great ideas and its a shame he couldn't run, but he didn't follow the rules and there's no reason he should be on the ballot. The main point of the article is trying to paint the democrats as corrupt... - jimbabb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16The point that seems to be overlooked here is that the Democrats and Republicans needed ZERO signatures to qualify for the state-wide ballot. Despite our constitution which mandates that elections be "free and equal," challenger parties and independents needed 67,070 perfect signatures. Guess who made these laws.
Many outstanding candidates never had a chance at ballot positions. At least 200,000 signatures were collected for statewide candidates that will not be on the ballot, despite recognized party status and demonstrated support. Millions of our voters will be denied a candidates of their own political persuasion. The worst part is the financial ruin that faces those that get close and fail. They got Nader in 2004, now Romanelli. It will have a chilling effect on future potential candidates.
BTW, no judge has ruled on the validity of a single Romanelli signature.
This audio includes a summary of the current situation and presentations from the scrubbed candidates: http://tinyurl.com/yeqmop
Pennsylvania is one of 4 states will only Ds & Rs on the statewide ballot. There is no anti-war candidate opposing Santorum. Too bad. Pennsylvania is in crisis and the judges promise to protect us from "ballot clutter." - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Thanks for clearing up who Carl Romanelli is, I was sure wondering.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"The truth is that four states have already taken the ability to do write-in away already." Piotrowski sadly added.
------------------------------
That's disgusting. - StephenChow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Reminds me of a magazine I read in a waiting room once. I forgot the name of it now, but it had this Sex Q&A at the end, and one of the questions asked was "What do I get out of giving my boyfriend a handjob?!" and right by it someone wrote in pen "The satisfaction of a job well done."
But, that's beside the point, I agree this blog is total BS. - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Boy, PA just can't catch a political break. Or at least its Republican representation can't. I just read that Don Sherwood is coughing up $5.5 million (spread out in periodic payments) to a woman he had an affair with and who accused him of domestic violence. One of the terms of the settlement was that she wouldn't mention the details of the settlement until after the election.
Oh, and he's a 65 year-old man. She's 30 now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061102/ap_on_el_ho/congressman_settlement
Unfortunately, his opponent in the upcoming tight election is hammering on the scandal, instead of focusing on the issues. If I was in PA, I'd kick both of them in the river. While I'm not a fan of Republican ideology, neither am I a fan of political opportunism. - scottc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The person wrote the press release in that blog needs an editor.
- olik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Thanks, I couldn't piece the story together from the article. It seems to blame the Democratic party for a ruling by the courts, but it still doesn't explain why he had to pay it. Was it for lawyer's fees, or to return unused public campaign money (would go to both parties), or what?
- rkwesq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7
Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ - syder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@jimbabb
Dugg ya up for pointing this out, because the obstacles put in place to keep third party candidates off the ballot is the real story here. For the record though, the Republicans and Democrats only need 2000 signatures (not zero).
There was a good piece on this, with an interview with Romanelli, on Democracy Now! a few days ago:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/31/150227 - berserc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The democrats killed his run because it hurt Casey. Period. The ironic thing is that the greens share values with the dems. All the dems care about is winning, nothing else matters. It would be nice if their strategy was based on having better ideas than the other parties instead of Bush bashing and legal maneuvers.
- oxyrubber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@pabster
Where did that come from? Did you even read the article or is this just non-Democrat-spam?
The JSM Inc. firm is the corrupt entity in this case, not the Democrats. Carl Romanelli should be blaming the firm he hired to collect signatures rather than the Democrat Party. - Loannes, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I'll second that.
- gnomeh, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Dems are corrupt? Everyone is corrupt.
Politics is corruption. Why vote when its all just corruption no matter whom you choose? - Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly.
- shadgenki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Florida and Ohio are next!!
- urandom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Vote for the lesser of the evils. Things suck now, make them suck less in the future.
I for one am very pleased to see any official fighting any sort of corruption. With a government as bloated, sluggish, and subject to corruption as ours, the best things for us are people like these folks who act against corruption regardless of it's source. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8No doubt. Why is this even news? The blog is total ***** per first comment.
- Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I realized that some dems are corrupt too, but I don't see how this story makes them corrupt. A green candidate who received money from republican donors, and then hired a republican company that created fake signatures gets challenged in court for false signatures and he lost.
- shadgenki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just watched a documentary last night on HBO about them and Diebold. Amazing how easy it is to manipulate the voting machines. While watching it, I actually considered the possibility of doing it myself, it's so easy!
- Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Which sums up why Democrats fought Romanelli's candidacy as hard as they did: they'd rather you can't vote for the candidate you want to than for them to lose.
- joybran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ shadgenki
"I can see why you'd feel apathetic towards voting for the lesser of two evils, but really, if you're not satisfied then either get involved or back a trustworthy candidate early. I understand why you feel like it doesn't make a difference, but believe me, it does. If one person supports a good candidate and spreads the word, then another person will, and another after that. Pretty soon you have a decent constituency for a worthy candidate."
Wasn't the whole point of the article that third party candidates can't even get on the ballot? Maybe Romanelli was a bad candidate who didn't play by the rules, or maybe he was a good candidate who had a lot of grassroots support but lost his court case to a corrupt justice system. I don't know, and I don't know how you can be sure either.
Whether Romanelli is good or bad, why is it apathy to refuse to support a corrupt system? The only way to peacefully change any government is to take away its legitimacy by refusing to support it. That means refusing to vote. As long as people continue to grant legitimacy to corruption, corruption will continue to grow. - jimbabb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@snyder
"Dugg ya up for pointing this out, because the obstacles put in place to keep third party candidates off the ballot is the real story here. For the record though, the Republicans and Democrats only need 2000 signatures (not zero)."
D's and R's need 2000 signatures for their own internal primaries. They need ZERO for the general election. - shadgenki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't know why you guys are getting dugged down. It's absolutely true. No matter what party you turn to, there's always going to be corrupt individuals. Greed knows no political inclination. There's just some greedy bastards out there mucking it up for the rest of the people.
I can see why you'd feel apathetic towards voting for the lesser of two evils, but really, if you're not satisfied then either get involved or back a trustworthy candidate early. I understand why you feel like it doesn't make a difference, but believe me, it does. If one person supports a good candidate and spreads the word, then another person will, and another after that. Pretty soon you have a decent constituency for a worthy candidate. - joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ urandom
"Vote for the lesser of the evils. Things suck now, make them suck less in the future."
How can you be sure which is the lesser of two evils? A lot of people who thought George Bush was the lesser of two evils because he promised a "humble" foreign policy now realize how wrong they were about the extent of his evil.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. Why support evil? Why support a system that only gives you a choice between two evils? Don't vote! - DSPGeek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The PA Green party and Romanelli's run was 95% funded by Republican money, so it's not as if an exciting third party voice was lost here. Matter of fact, the corrupt signature gathering organisation was also a Rep creation. The whole thing was an attempt by Santorum's people to siphon votes off Casey's left in the same style as Nader's spoiler run in 2000 (partly funded by the RNC, by the way).
The Greens are knowing pawns to all this, of course, even though the Democratic environmental record is way better than the Republican's; turns out that even a small compromise is enough for the tofu-munchers to call Dems "just as bad as everyone else" and go chasing electoral rainbows while helping their natural predators get elected.
Lord, spare me from dumb hippies. - pollardito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i think the reasoning is that the millions of votes that the Dems/Repubs got at the previous election qualify as people that believe they should be able to be on the next ballot. i don't believe that Perot's party had to collect signatures to field a candidate in elections after their first
- Dhalsim007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yes, the reason this decision is OK is because the firm Carl Romanelli used was corrupt, and the signatures were invalid. If Carl Romanelli would have dropped the case and accepted the decision that the petition to be on the ballot was invalid, he would have been out no money. But, because he pushed it and wasted the courts' time, he was socked with the judgment and the plaintiff's (Dems) legal bills.
And for those who aren't in PA....there are literally thousands of "judges of elections" around the state. These two that resigned were not big fish politically by any means. - TheOther1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4@ Alphabet
It's not the story that makes them corrupt, it's the partys acceptance of scumbags. Starting with the murdering likes of Ted Kennedy and only getting worse from there. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6Dems corrupt? No way, only the GOP is..well..if I had no memory whatsoever that would be true..but alas..
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -32/+7Dems ARE corrupt.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is