The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Losing
37 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points

McCain and Obama should not be allowed on the 2008 Presidential Ballot in Texas.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 14 votes the winner is...
Tatarize
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,226 times Debate No: 5279
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (14)

 

Johnicle

Pro

Ladies and Gentleman, I come to you with blatant ignorance of the law. Let me explain to you:

The deadline for candidates to get their name on the ballot in Texas was August 26th @ 5:00 p.m. BOTH the Republicans and Democrats MISSED this deadline by not turning in the papers on time. By ANY interpretation of the law, they should not be allowed to be on the ballot, however, the Secretary of State in Texas seems to be poised to ignore this, and allow them on the ballot anyway.

============================================

This is absolute tyranny. While Republicans and Democrats slip by the law, independents are having the law turned against them to make it nearly impossible to gain access to all 50 states. The media seems to be either ignoring it or turning against the third parties who are currently demanding EQUALITY (as they should). Just because the majority didn't get the paper work filled out and turned in on time doesn't mean that you let them by. It's a double standard for the Dems and Reps and against all third parties.

============================================

Today, not only do I want people to learn about this situation, but I want as many people as possible to learn about the deceptive power of the current 2 party system. Please, get the word out of these unjust actions.

Thanks and good luck to my opponent.
Tatarize

Con

Ballot deadlines are established in order to make sure the state can print proper ballots and so that they don't have to change anything after a certain point. With modern technology printing ballots is no longer a major issue. They could do all the needed work in about a week. Yeah, the law says 60 days. But, there's no real point to the law within the last 30 days or so. And although it would be rather entertaining to see Bob Barr win the state of Texas by being the only person on the ballot and kick the general election results solidly to Obama. It doesn't serve any worthwhile purpose and only serves to effectively disenfranchise the parties.

This is one of the reasons we have real people in positions of authority, so they can step in when the law doesn't flipping work.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

WHY must the two parties support the law when it helps them but ditch it as soon as it gets in their way. THE WHOLE REASON that we are in this fight (Libertarians, and other 3rd parties) is to cut awful laws LIKE this. But since this isn't a debate about our personal liberties, let me explain why we need to support this law and remove McCain and Obama from the ticket.

==========

1) There is no doubt that the two parties missed the deadline (I won't waist your time here).

2) SEVERAL Third Parties have missed the deadline just like the situation in Texas.
HERE is where the debate is. Why is it, that the Libertarians have been kicked off the ballot in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Maine. All of these situations are even JUST LIKE Texas and in some cases, even worse.

3) Maine
From: Shane Cory, Barr's Deputy Campaign Manager
Quote: "In Maine, a contractor for the Libertarian Party was in the process of turning in signatures and we've been told that the Secretary of State actually sent a letter to town clerks instructing them not to accept the petitions during what historically has been a grace period beyond the early deadline."
--> Wow, we turn in during a grace period and the Democrats and Republicans turn it in even PAST that. We get screwed and the Reps. and Dems. are allowed to be on the ballot. Because of these injustices, they should NOT let them on the ballot.

4) Pennsylvania
In Penn., the signatures were turned in but then the McCain campaign sued us. The decision is being decided right now.

5) West Virginia
-Same Source as 3
-Quote: We are asking the West Virginia Secretary of State to count and accept the 23,000 signatures that we turned in several days past the early deadline of August 1st - nearly a month before the Republicans and Democrats would even officially nominate their candidates.

==========

In the end, third parties weren't allowed on the ballot, why should the Republicans and Democrats be allowed on? Whether or not the reasons for the deadline are necessary, they are still the law. And if they have forced the 3rds to comply to it, they should force the others to. Anything else would be double standard tyranny.

I anxiously await your response.
Tatarize

Con

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The debate isn't about how Libertarians are being screwed over just whether or not McCain and Obama should be allowed on the ballot. In part one of the debate I noted that the law was kind of silly and we could do it even without such a long advancing deadline. As much of your debate seems to suggest that the major parties think they are above the law, let's take a look at the law:

So I don't forget for part two when Johnicle whines about how the law is the law:

� 181.005. QUALIFYING FOR PLACEMENT ON BALLOT BY PARTY
REQUIRED TO NOMINATE BY CONVENTION. (a) To be entitled to have
the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot, a
political party required to make nominations by convention must
file with the secretary of state, not later than the 75th day after
the date of the precinct conventions held under this chapter, lists
of precinct convention participants indicating that the number of
participants equals at least one percent of the total number of
votes received by all candidates for governor in the most recent
gubernatorial general election. The lists must include each
participant's residence address and voter registration number.
(b) A political party is entitled to have the names of its
nominees placed on the ballot, without qualifying under Subsection
(a), in each subsequent general election following a general
election in which the party had a nominee for a statewide office who
received a number of votes equal to at least five percent of the
total number of votes received by all candidates for that office.

Texas law says the parties get to add their names. Last time around they earned more than five percent. They get to dodge the other restrictions and have their names added. If you want the Communist party or Peace and Freedom party to add their names they need to have either made the deadline accordingly or have earned 5% last time around.

The Democrats and Republicans both made 5% last time, by law their names are properly added.

1) It's kind of silly. There's little point to the deadline as you only need a week or two to prepare.
2) You honestly want to disenfranchise the parties based on this? Really?
3) There is absolutely nothing amiss with the law, legally McCain and Obama get added to the ballot.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

I hope you don't mind but it seemed easier to do the video thing...
Tatarize

Con

The law doesn't dictate what should happen? Yeah, it kinda does.

The third parties can get in, all they need is 5% in statewide election. It doesn't say Democrats or Republicans. They are held to the exact same standard. Those standards are lower for those parties which have shown that they stand a chance.

However, as you argue, sure. I'd have no qualms with allowing a good number of third parties on the ballot with much more lax standards. The debate isn't about that though. It isn't about disenfranchising third parties, it's about disenfranchising the first two. McCain and Obama are legally allowed on the ballot. McCain and Obama are legally placed on the ballot. McCain and Obama should be on the ballot. If you want to say we should make it easier for third parties I am absolutely behind that. I think we should switch to run off elections for most things just to give third parties a fighting chance. I am not however remotely convinced with any of this that we should deny McCain and Obama a position on the ballot. More inclusive, sure... draconianly less inclusive because you feel slighted? Hell no.

Pro isn't that third parties get a shot. Pro is that McCain and Obama should be denied.

Everybody IS held to the same standard. 5% and you have proved that you can compete. If a third party gets more than 5% they get added to the ballot without the other standard which effectively ask if they are legit. Third parties don't stand a chance because it is winner take all. If I vote for the Green party the Democrats are less competitive. If somebody else votes Constitution party, they Republicans are less competitive. It is in the best interests of everybody to vote for the party that stands the best chance of winning and has opinions most in line with yours. That's the problem. Not the two party system.

You need runoff elections. You don't need hissy-fits saying that only the Libertarians should be on the ballot... even though the Democrats and Republicans legally get to be added because they have previously shown that they can perform in a state wide race.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
I definetly do, you had a great argument Tatarize, Johnicle seems to discount the law in most of his speeches. However, (in my opinion) the law is valid evidence for a point. Unless the debate is about changing a particular law, or that a particular law is unjust. Then the arguement is more philosophy based. However, this argument is not philosophy based, nor is it about how the third parties are being screwed over (so to speak) in America. It is primarily about Texas.
Posted by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
This debate ended when Tatarize brought out and correctly interpreted the Texas statute. Did everybody miss that?
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
I'm just as astounded as you Johnicle. I figured you were trounced but still you're winning. How very odd. Still a couple weeks to vote I suppose.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Tat, See what happens to you if your are late for a court date. I ment to be here but I was a few days late. I dont see any difference.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Wow, I can't believe I'm actually winning this debate. I didn't even know it was done and haven't cast a ballot yet. I'm always unsure how to do it now that there are multiple ways of doing it.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Sadolite, the law says the parties get added to the ballot. The laws are on their side. If we're following the laws then everything was done properly when they were added to the ticket.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
A law is a law until it is changed. It does not matter how silly or stupid one thinks it is. If the govt is not going to enforce the law there is no point to having any laws. It is called anarchy, pick and choose what laws you like and ignore the ones you don't. Pro is right and deserves the win in this debate. It is the political parties that disenfranchise by not following the law. It is not the law it's self being enforced. If the govt is going to look the other way for the Republicans and the Democrats then it should look the other way for all other political parties. Seems to me it would give voters a greater selection of candidates to choose from rather than limiting their choices there by disenfranchising the voter.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Next time i will post more "socially acceptable comments"

The reason i had such a forceful comment is because you completely switched the topic of the debate and turned it into a rant about how the the third parties are being disenfranchised.

Which wasn't at all the topic of the debate. Leaving the contender with virtually nothing to say.

As I do not like pure opinated debates such as whether to institute a draft or not (seeing as the possibility of this occuring is slim to none) why not challenge me on a more active topic like say NAFTA, The Capital Gains Tax, Abortion, Civil Unions vs Gay Marriage, National Healthcare, or if you want to argue about the draft, why not you argue whether it has a probability of occuring and I'll argue against it. Anything of this sort. If you want me to start the debate just send me a message telling me what topic, or if you want to start it... really it doesnt matter to me.

As for me being someone who I'm not?

Thats obviously not true seeing as how I have already done 2 debates neither in the style of the person who you accuse me of being.

Sorry if I call things how I see them, and I saw Johnicle consistently switching the topics of his debates.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Yeah, lets keep this discussion intelligent rather than belligerent, scissorhands. Never post on the basis of your emotions.
Posted by Mallard727 8 years ago
Mallard727
Tru dat...You skittle eater Scissorhands. All you do is bash him. If you want to bash someone you really should take your insecurity with yourself to a forum or a youtube comment board.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by chevy10294 8 years ago
chevy10294
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by innomen 8 years ago
innomen
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Nox 8 years ago
Nox
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
JohnicleTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07