Comments on: U.S. District Court in Alabama Says State May Require More Signatures for U.S. House than for President

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:08:41 +0000

One more party hack judge doing party hack stuff.

Separate is NOT equal.

Brown v. Bd of Ed 1954.

By: paulie

paulie — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:01:09 +0000

I get really confused every time I see a ballot with only one candidate on it, but additional candidates tend to clear up my confusion. The more choices, the less confused I get.

Is it just me?

By: citizen1

citizen1 — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:42:04 +0000

The ballot may be too crowded if there were two candidates. Imagine how confused the voters would be.

By: An Alabama Independent

An Alabama Independent — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 03:30:07 +0000

This decision is disappointing but not surprising. Only when “independents” whether 3rd partisan or non-partisan make ballot access a “civil rights” issue, will there ever be any hope for justice.

This is another reason why “independents” need to at least temporarily join together under one political label and nominate candidates who can put pressure on the major parties. As long as we stay divided into our little micro parties – finding fault with the philosophical philsophies of the other more so than we do the major parties -there is no hope of success. And the leaders of the major parties know this.

But I’ve preached this message to the choir before. And just like before, I do not expect any change in the typical attitude of gripping, complaining, and having a “pity party” for our own bullheadedness.

There is no need to say more.