Is this what democracy looks like Joe Sestak?

It’s what winning an election looks like, so I’m completely happy that Sestak did it and that Packer is dropping out.

It’s not Joe Sestak’s job to change the election laws in Pennsylvania. Go find a State House or State Senate candidate the supports reform and work hard to get them elected if you want this to change.

It’s not Joe Sestak’s job to change the election laws in Pennsylvania. ???

However, it is supposed to be Joe’s job to defend Constitutional principles and look out for the little guy.

Bruce, glad to see you acknowledging that Joe is putting Politics over Principles.

The PA election rules for third party candidates are clearly unfair to the point where a non-partisan judge should rule them unconstitutional.

BTW, MY state legislators already support reform and change, and I have fought to get them elected, so that pricks like Sestak can’t pull this nonsense.

Bruce

thanks…. I will take up your suggestion on finding another candidate to support and ill start early this fall. Maybe ill write in Specter since there’s no Green candidate.

One lone voice crying in the wilderness.

thats going to be you bill after sestak loses and no one else gives a sh**

Sestak was the lone voice crying in the wilderness about the big job offer he received in the primary.

What a pity and a disgrace that once again big money wins and the people lose. Mow many of us Ind. have no one to vote for and we just won’t vote. Tired of not having a choice that we could vote for and still be able to sleep at night. Your choice is really not a choice at all, you have only a choice of bad or worse . What kind of choice is that? None. I always thought they should have “none of the above”
Yes there was a time that I always voted for the party a long time ago when they had honorable people but now they all belong to wall street. Folks you get what you pay for and because of you the country is in the hopper. Can anyone name 5 things that are good about Toomey or Sestak ???
Good you stuck don’t I ?

Give me a break all of you!

If the Green party candidate got all of the petition sigs he needed, there would be no cost to him to “defending” himself.

So to those who criticize any candidates who challange the sigs of another candidate should think again…..those challanges are healthy for our system to ensure that a million people don’t waste our time by running for office without having done some prior homework.

Another good pick for Diano. Atta boy David keep up the good work.

Bruce Bailey … you make a good point and it was totally expected (and given the rules of the game) and it would have been stupid for Sestak NOT to challenge. But to your second point, changing the state law. Unfortunately, there are few state reps/senators to support SB252 that could improve things. It’s not a law most people care about and few PA House or Senate Republicans or Democrats would support it because it’s not in their interest. Further, no citizen really makes the connection between good election law to good goverment, voter participation, and legitimacy … but that’s truly what we’re fighting for. It’s why Mel ran, to try to make these points clearer for people.

To “IntelligentVoter”, since lawers are not free, there is a cost, it could be that the court will not assess fees to the “loser” of the case. Also, the burden of truth is so high that small discrepancies in a name or address can technically invalidate a signature on a ballot petition. It’s a huge risk for a small, voter supported pary (very few voters, and among them not exactly the wealthy elite support the Green Party). And, your point about too many candidates on the ballot is rather trite. We’ve had so few alternatives in ths state to the two-party duopoly, seems like you aren’t really paying attention (or you’re Joe Sestak and you don’t care). The few candidates that can go out and get 20,000 signatures isn’t going to exactly clutter the ballot.

The Greens hope to get publicity and supporters and issues on the table that would not normally be there, even in the case of being thrown off the ballot. The voters, most of them anyway, get what they demand, not what they meekly suggest.

Once again, voters interested in open debate and the free exchange of ideas have been betrayed by a candidate purporting to espouse those very ideals. Last week, Joe Sestak, the “progressive”candidate for US Senate, challenged the candidacy of his third party opponents. This move makes it virtually impossible for the third parties to fully represent their views and ideas and engage in open debate in Pennsylvania.

Regardless of whether or not one is interested in voting for a third party, voters should be outraged at the ability of the strong to squash the voices of the weak. Third parties do not have the resources to fight off attacks from the major parties that have huge war chests of money at their disposal. Therefore, new ideas and unique contributions to public debate are all but silenced by powers claiming to have our best interests at heart.

Be it red or blue, the true colors of the two major parties are becoming less and less attractive to voters, that much is clear. Nearly 40% of voters now identify as Independent, and Sestak’s latest tactic is a good example of why. Voters are angered by this type of blatant partisan politics that thwarts true progress in favor of power grabbing and stonewalling. More voices should be welcomed in political discourse, not fewer. We need new ideas and non-partisan points of view introduced into the current partisan grid-lock that grips our legislature.

I urge every voter who is fed up with partisan politics to show your displeasure by registering Independent. The two major parties have gotten a free ride for too long, and it is time to let them know that they only have as much power as we are willing to give them. We need diverse opinions, new ideas, and all voices to be heard if we are to move forward together in strength and freedom.

I was cautiously considering voting for Sestak.

Now, I’m afraid, I will be writing in Mel Packer out of pure disgust with Sestak’s actions toward third party candidates.

Intel voter,

There is certainly cost to defending against a challenge. First it would have required taking time off work and traveling to harrisburg for court. One could represent oneself in court, but that is not practical if you have any hope of winning against whatever law firm is representing sestak. In addition to paying the lawyer for court time there are may hours of tedious review of each challenged line, and matching them to voter registration records.

In 2006 the court required us to have 9 greens paired with 9 democratic legislative aids (who we later learned were paid with bonuses from public funds) working full time, 5 days a week for 6 weeks. The judge, who was hostile to our defense from the start, arbitrarily ended the process, refused to allow review of disputed lines as had been stipulated, and ordered carl romanelli removed from the ballot. In a bizarre interpretation of the law, with only one precedent in pa, or in any state, the judge ordered that romanelli pay the legal fees of the challenger, which were over $80,000. Not only was a legitimate candidate stricken from the ballot, but he was saddled with the challenger’s cost, in addition to his own expenses.

Getting 20,000 signatures is no small feat. It required dozens of volunteers across the state to log thousands of hours on the streets. But the cost of defending those signatures can be greater.

If you believe that having only two choices is “healthy for our system” then you have a warped view of democracy.

I will be writing in Mel Packer tomorrow