Keeping a candidate off a ballot and keeping his supporters from voting for him are two different issues.
I would raise holy hell if Blackwell was a Democrat and he was doing this to keep fundamentalist Christians from voting. I support the constitutional right to vote and feel that you should be able to sign up the same day as the election if you want to. I have always gotten after people to vote. I still say, "I hope you vote for Kerry, but if not then I hope you vote." I have pressed people under 30 to vote in every election, as they will never truly gain any political power without a voice and a steady voting record.
The Nader challenges are political absolutely. However, this is not keeping someone from voting at all. It is simply challenging Nader to make sure he has enough votes. Yes it is a little underhanded, but then with all the invalid signatures that have popped up, I actually agree with it. Just because Nader isn't on the Ballot, doesn't mean people can't vote at all. If they can't register, they can't vote.
Hopefully, you can understand the difference.
Nonsense. Keeping a candidate off a ballot is simply one way of keeping his supporters from voting for him (the preferred way, for non-major-party candidates), presumably in the hopes they will then vote for someone else (Kerry, in Nader's case).
It is simply challenging Nader to make sure he has enough votes. Yes it is a little underhanded, but then with all the invalid signatures that have popped up, I actually agree with it.
Sorry, but not all challenges to Nader are based on not having enough valid signatures. Many have been based on technicalities, such as filing paperwork a few hours late. In Arizona whole rafts of signatures from valid voters were tossed because the signature gatherer wasn't qualified (due to a drug conviction or some such nonsense).
Of course, the Rethugs haven't played fair with respect to Nader either, helping him get signatures even though they oppose everything he stands for, etc. Florida's SoS was especially egregious, defying a court order to place his name on absentee ballots.
Given that the Rethugs are going to play dirty, we may be justified in playing equally dirty to cancel them out. (Kind of like trying to find "blue" states to redistrict, to cancel out what Tom DeLay did in Texas last year.) That would make an interesting ethical discussion, but pretending we're being complete angels isn't helpful.
One more thing. It's not fair to give someone a '1' rating just because you disagree with them. Keep that in reserve for real trolls.
Everybody does not have the right to be on the ballot...there are legal standards that must be met to qualify; in some states they are stringent, in other states they are loose, like in California, which is why the California recall was such a circus. There's nothing wrong with challenging a candidate's legal qualification to be on the ballot.
Everybody does not have the right to be on the ballot.
But everybody DOES have the right to vote!
NO COMPARISON!
