INTERDEPENDENT DEMOCRACY
The 2 party ideal is seriously flawed, failing and dangerous as on one hand it apparently won't secure and can't serve a large prosperous public as the USA with having annually crisis (or potential) level conditions directly linking to our economy, national health and neighborhood and community civility commonly mirrored through media condoning theft, murder, magic and even anarchy - and on other disengages possible real-time and not speaking of current-time elections, so rather than engaging the main body of voters with and in the nomination process of multiple candidates and does as well bottleneck millions of the peoples choices through free elections at a two toll point of arrival or travel.. R FRUSHOUR.
People today are weighing in thoughts while within discussions as difficult somehow, connecting genuinne views or feelings and personal beliefs, though still prevail ultimately with political sense if not personal connection.
Beside wanting to be politically correct we all, there is our "hesitating," as many do and project, "adjusting to reigns of public policy weak as it is, in a constituted peoples government," but moreover become fearful a bit from perceived non-alligned (as uncommited) brandings or racial profiling potentially nearby.
I believe at an individual autonomous level "there are no" incorrect answers as to sharing with friends or even reporters and correspondents.
Resultant atmosphere of restricted freedoms of speech and individual rights to crusade in political persuading is of self incorrect and unacceptable in and under bias' and partisan 1x2 "special control (majoritarian) aristocracy."
Wrong partisan connectednesses to embedded resident political culture here is next now what I am messaging for, to eleviate threat from within grassroot movement as 1st amendment rights.
We USA citizens now in the new era of volitility, more than at any time in the past, fight fast and fearless for the survival and personal success of our national personal inheritance. It seems perfectly good to protest and demonstrate against factionist leaders and not be branded with treason in our "similar preferred pledge of allegiances" or be (not) perjured a traitor.
Election booths and polls are not courtrooms and candidates here are not both or all adversarial representatives of two sides in a legal arguement or case. If it does present a similarity let me assure you the supreme court by all means is suppose to do their jobs as judges not poll and ballot counters or supervisors or moreso voter other of course than their each and individual citizen right to vote. Elections are "People for one day" addressing the nation in their vote as a voice, as one pronouncement, who is to be their leader.
Just as markets and local-global economies don't do quite well in earnings with presence of heavy handed federal policy making, where turnaround gapping of course occurs in eyes of investors, neither now does America express her greatness with federal government and it's two-party monopolistic and centralized (re)elections lend to free democratic election process.
What would you ask me to do? Tell you how to work in congress halls with three parties? We are not the Kurds, Shiites and Sunis at war but an open forum legislature of constituents serving our country who can work just the same, with third party presence under a "five tiered multiparty system institute" whether excelling in numbers/seats and majority or fledgling along as did Senator Jeffers in a "representative independent constituency" even possibly in a minority as always some are.
Sunata
21st Century Publishing Hollywood "Sunata" Production Agreements, Writers, Entertainers, Actors, Actresses, Speakers, Atheletes, Web
Developers, Entrepreneurs, Educators, Journalists, Fundraisers, Real Estate Brokers, Career Specialists, Bounty Hunters Motion-Picture.
Screenplay & Story By Randy Frushour Apply Fast To Atomic Group! STARRING John Tinker books main character - Struggle For Student Rights.
CO-STARRING Keynote Speaker Thomas DeGroot In Auto-Biography On Nuclear Disarmament. "Special Guest Appearance" By Mark Scholl
CEO Appearance Technology - Home LA.
Much appreciation to give to many Internet Arts writers and editors for a crash course in high-flown artificial diction!
The brightest shine is in the smallest diamond and a small cut diamond has been cut more than once.
Directions hope audience that do not adhere to sciences of religion or state will come with prophetic tiding resolved.
RESTATE
Absolutely got my attention, then I wondered about it for a long time and now the rest be forever unknown.
LIGHTBULB STOOD IN GOLD CASEMENT
Disappears. Spinning bus tire. Motionless. Unseen SONGBIRDS Sound.
Cut To Scene, take one and action Starred Cast Central Contact Next
Book "21st Century Zeros Epoch" Of Expositions & Anachronisms Starring "Millennium Idiom & Resume Democracy."
SEND EMAIL REQUEST INFORMATION
21stCentury@LA.com
The New York Times, Thursday, Dec. 5, 1996
Supreme Court Debates State Bans On Multiparty
Candidates
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
New York voters take for granted the fact that candidates can appear on the ballot as the nominees of more than one party at a
time. But such fusion tickets are an anomaly elsewhere in the country, in fact are prohibited in most states, and the Supreme
Court heard arguments today on whether those prohibitions violate the First Amendment rights of free speech and association.
The case before the Court was from Minnesota, where a ban on fusion tickets that dates to the turn of the century prevented
the Twin Cities Area New Party from giving its nomination two years ago to a state legislator who had already accepted
renomination by the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis,
declared the prohibition unconstitutional early this year.
The Justices appeared skeptical of the defense of the ban put forward by Richard S. Slowes, assistant solicitor general of
Minnesota, who argued the state's appeal. Mr. Slowes said the ban served the state's interest of preventing confusion among
voters.
"You have to be pretty dense to be confused on this one," Justice John Paul Stevens said. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
referring to the New York experience, said, "At least one state has a lot of experience with fusion candidates, without a lot of
confusion."
That led Justice Antonin Scalia, the only member of the Court other than Justice Ginsburg with New York roots, to quip, "New
Yorkers are smarter."
Mr. Slowes said, "I think I have to be careful, if I'm going back to Minnesota, about making that argument."
At the same time, however, the Court was clearly troubled at the prospect of declaring unconstitutional the election laws of 40
states. Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor arguing for the New Party, did not manage to allay the Justices'
concerns.
"We're talking about a major effect," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said, in a comment echoed moments later by Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist, who said, "If we were to rule for you, it would result in quite sweeping changes in a great many states."
The argument had the flavor of a political science class grafted onto a constitutional law seminar. Justices expressed their
concerns about the future of the two-party system and challenged Mr. Tribe on why states could not validly conclude that they
wanted to structure their electoral systems to favor two rather than a multiplicity of parties.
Justice Scalia declared himself firmly in favor of preserving a two-party system. Justice Stephen G. Breyer -- Mr. Tribe's
occasional colleague at Harvard Law School, where he still teaches a class -- said the "classic argument" for the two-party
system was that it forces parties to take responsibility for candidates who run under their banner.
"Where the Constitution is at stake, how can I say a state doesn't have the right to choose the model it thinks better?" Justice
Breyer asked.
Making the point that New Party members who want to support a major-party candidate "can still vote" for that candidate,
although not on their own ballot line, Justice O'Connor said, "The key First Amendment right is voting for who you want to."
But, Mr. Tribe replied, that right comes at an unacceptable price when fusion tickets are not allowed. By voting for their
preferred candidate on another party's line, he said, third-party voters are forced to "strengthen a party they disagree with" by
adding to its vote total and, under some circumstances, to its entitlement to public money.
The right at issue was the right to "coalesce around mutually acceptable candidates," Mr. Tribe said.
Fusion tickets were common in the 19th century, before they were eliminated in most states. A brief submitted on the New
Party's behalf by 12 historians and political scientists said the prohibitions were presented as reform measures but were
"designed in large measure to ensconce the ruling party."
|
