The other night I dreamt of knives

[cyrano]

Must. Comment.
The head of the California Republican Party is live on Today right now, and has just cried and declaimed what an awful job Gray Davis has done; his first and primary complaint is that the state started with a $10m surplus and is now in a $39m deficit. And that, friends, is grounds for recalling a publically elected official. I wonder if anybody else falls under this criterium.....

There will be no commenting about the fact that, despite there being 320987432874 candidates on the ballot, only two people representing two parties (Well. One.) are allowed to comment.

---

My mood has improved noticably since the installation of the car stereo.
I am now officially late for work.

Comments

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

only two people representing two parties (Well. One.) are allowed to comment

I count three. Schwarzenegger - Republican. Simon - Republican. Bustamante - Democrat.

Am I wrong? Is Arnold going as an independent?

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

Arnold is running as a Republican. :p

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Let me be more explicit. This morning on the Today Show they had the head of the California Democratic Party and the head of the California Republican Party as guests to discuss the recall election and the candidates involved.
An election with, it looks like, over 200 candidates. Many of whom are not Republicrats. However, as is par for the course, the media is keeping the Third Party Man down by refusing to acknowledge his existence.

[mallen.livejournal.com]

You mean Camejo? Huffington?

Don't be so oblique.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

It is not a complaint specific to this election, and I've done it before, over and over. One of the reasons I was oblique.
The two huge parties in this country have a stranglehold on political power and they aim to keep it. The media are extremely helpful in this regard, perpetuating the myth that nobody has any choice but to hold their noses and vote for 'one of the two candidates'.
This was especially infuriating during the guber race here in California, as article after article bemoaned the fact that both candidates for guber were so hated and so awful.
Even the ultra-liberal communist fronted San Francisco Chronicle, which had the audacity to suggest that the two men selected by their party might not be the best choices, would only present alternate selections from the same two tired and worn out useless parties rather than dare to mention that there were other choices on the very same ballot that these candidates were on.

[mallen.livejournal.com]

The media are extremely helpful in this regard, perpetuating the myth that nobody has any choice but to hold their noses and vote for 'one of the two candidates'.

It isn't just the media, I'm afraid. Election laws themselves are written mostly with regard to the Democrats and Republicans. There's the "winner take all" voting system, for starters.

Another reason is the rampant gerrymandering of political districts to make seats "safe" for a Democrat or Republican. That makes races between candidates and even parties quite uninteresting for the most part.

Yet another good example (of many more) are the rules surrounding federal matching campaign contributions, which require that a given party achieve such and such a percentage before the government will match funds.

Anyway. On a national level, it's going to be very difficult, it not impossible for a third party candidate to achieve an office. Maybe in a small state (like, Vermont) which embraces ideology more than party labels it's possible.

On a statewide level, again in a smaller state, it's not impossible, but certainly quite rare. In California, it's going to be impossible for a third party to win. There just isn't enough money available to buy TV ad time or the county by county organization to support such a candidate.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

Again, far be it from me to say that this is a media conspiracy or that if it weren't for big bad CNN the world would be a perfect place.
But I am strongly resistant to just sitting back and letting the Republicrats hijack the greatest democratic experiment I have ever seen.
Best tactic is probably start small--city elections, county offices, state congressmen--but at the heart of it, I just got to the point where I didn't want to live with my conscience after I voted for somebody I found repugnant on the theory that if I didn't vote for the candidate I thought would do the best job I was 'throwing away my vote'.
If I get serious and passionate enough about this, maybe I'll end up moving to Wyoming or New Hampshire or someplace small enough to be controlled by my psychic mind control.

[mallen.livejournal.com]

I vote my conscience, and not "pragmatically" so I feel your pain, as Clintonesque as that sounds.

Sometimes that means I don't vote for any of the available candidates. That's kind of sad.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

It is. I find more and more that I'm not going to elections to vote for people. I'm going to vote for ballot measures and other 'things' because, as usual, people have disappointed me.
But those 'things' are important enough to keep me coming back to the old school gym and voting.

[miss-friday.livejournal.com]

An election with, it looks like, over 200 candidates.

Little off. As I posted it's somewhere between 155 and 195, depending on which article you read.

However, as is par for the course, the media is keeping the Third Party Man down by refusing to acknowledge his existence.

Actually, the media I've read/heard hasn't gotten enough of acknowledging other candidates --- in snorting laughter. Have yet to read anything truly substantial about the whole affair, aside from the judicial decisions regarding Davis' objections.

[spenceraloysius.livejournal.com]

Check out the Candidate Status Report by the Secretary of State. It is updated daily. At my last check, it said 131.