On Jun 26, 2009, at 11:17 PM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
> At 8:46 PM -0400 26/6/09, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> Man, I never thought I'd find myself defending the U.S. electoral
>> system, but at least we don't have a bunch of clerics vetting
>> candidates for office. Yeah, I know there are all kinds of informal
>> vetting mechanisms - money, restrictive ballot laws, ideology,
>> media idiocy, etc. - but at least in theory anyone here can run for
>> office. So this sort of sneer is really preposterous.
>
> I can't take your word for that. What part of the following essay is
> incorrect? I should mention that the following article doesn't even
> mention the most odious aspect of US ballot-access laws, the fact
> that all these thousands of signatures required to get on the ballot
> means that thousands of people would have to be prepared to publicly
> align themselves with such a party. I can imagine it might be a
> risky thing to do for many working people, to publicly support for
> example a socialist candidate or party. It completely circumvents
> the principle of secret voting to require up to 5% of party
> supporters to go public and risk retaliation by employers.
Did you read what I wrote? "YEAH, I KNOW THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF INFORMAL VETTING MECHANISMS - MONEY, RESTRICTIVE BALLOT LAWS, IDEOLOGY, MEDIA IDIOCY, ETC. - BUT AT LEAST IN THEORY ANYONE HERE CAN RUN FOR OFFICE." As fucked up as our system is, candidates don't have to be approved by a gang of clerics. There are actually a few half- decent elected officials in the USA, you know, as dire as the situation generally is.