This is the first time since I've started reading GP back when it was on LJ that you've said anything I've considered remotely foolish.

Not voting is not a protest, its a cop-out.  Yes, your vote won't be counted immediately to assign victory to the main candidate, but it WILL be counted for posterity.  Yes, balloting in this country is confusing, difficult to break a thrid party choice into, and all too different from state-to-state.  Yes, the media makes voting into a horse race instead of an educated democratic (small d) process.  Yes, a third party doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning (especially this election).  There are major issues with our electoral process, especially the Presidential race which is so hyped and selective that the flaws are made evident.

But, enlighten me as to how not voting will change any of this.

(At least vote for me in 2016 when I run?)

~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~

The U.S. election system certainly doesn't give equal chances to third/minor party candidates and there are severeal reasons (some good, some bad) for that.

Some third party candidates are single-issue candidates.  They get into the race to talk about one issue and one issue only.  They aren't running a serious campaign, they want the platform.  There isn't anything wrong with that at all, but you can't expect them to be taken seriously as a contender.  People simply aren't going to vote for a party/candidate that only cares about one issue.

Some third party candidates are well...lunatics (I'm looking at Lyndon LaRouche here) and obviously they won't be taken seriously.

Now, our election system is clearly stacked against third party candidates, whether by statute or custom and that isn't fair.

Part of the problem is that parties themselves.  Officially the Republican and Democrat parties are PRIVATE entitites.  They are NOT agents of the government.  That is why they are allowed to set so many of their own rules (regarding who can vote in primaries for example).  Most of those rules are designed to prevent your common third party people from getting into the primary mix in those parties, forcing them to go the third party route.

However, when a third party candidate makes a sufficiently strong showing that candidate, even losing the election by a landslide, can affect the agenda of the major parties.

Case in point, in 1992 Ross Perot won 10% of the popular vote a HUGE number for a third party candidate.  The Republican party actually ended up co-opting a lot Perot's agenda when they took Congress in the 1994 Republican Revolution elections.

The Republicans recognized that, although Perot was trounced by both major candidates in the 1992 election, his message and ideas had resonated.  So the Republicans, while modifying his ideas somewhat, basically co-opted Perot's message in the 1994 mid-terms.  So some of Perot's ideas at least got into the mainstream.

However, that probably wouldn't have happened if the people who wanted to vote for Perot had gone "Well he wasn't given a fair shake [however true that is] so I'm just going to protest the whole system by not voting."

There's no way Perot's ideas would have been co-opted at all if he had only gotten 1-2% of the vote.  But the fact that he could show his ideas resonated with the general population (by gettign 10%) forced the major parties to at least pay attention.

In a similar vein Ralph Nader is trying the same thing now, he wants his Consumer Protection ideas to get a fair hearing.  He knows he, unfairly, has no real chance or exposure, but if he can at least show his ideas resonate he may force the mainstream parties to at least pay attention.  Same thing goes for Ron Paul.

All not voting does is further marginilize the ideas and positions that people who support third party/minor candidates.  It tells the Republicans and Democrats that no one actually cares at all...that these guys were just loons who no one paid attention to.

The only problem with that is that to get a third party officially recognized is just as hard. So while you can run and get a local office as an independant, you are not recognized as part of the Libertairian or Green party. You are simply "independant" That in and of itself is very counter intuative to the purpose. The incumbunt parties have worked hard to ensure that the population equates independant with something bad.

I would love for there to be more third party office holders. But the fact remains that too many people vote on party lines with out considering what these people stand for or what they do. Most voters just look at the hot button issues that noone has been able to resolve for years like Social Security etc. and completely ignore the more pressing issues that can be solve and need to be solved right now.

People are ignorant and the current system is designed to keep them that way.

E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com

Oklahoma and four other states. I am not sure off the top of my head which states make up the other four. But  Idon't think it is unconstitutional or la teast has never been declared so.

Several ballot access organizations have been trying to get a ruling stating that OK's ballot access laws are unconstitutional on State constitution grounds. I don't think that it has gotten enough exposure to try to get a national ruling on it though. 

E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com

I presume you are referring to civil trials with your technicalities statement.  In most cases a technicality in a criminal trial gets the defendant off (something not usually popular).

I will say this though, technicalities ARE the law.  If you really want to get down to it, the Miranda rights are a technicality.  If you aren't read them you get off.  It's a pure procedural technicality, but an important one.

It isn't the Court's fault if some lawyer is delinquent or negligent and fails to comply with procedural requirements (which are spelled out and known to any lawyer certified to the Bar).

Additionally, American courts have what is called the "harmless error doctrine" an error can be ignored if it is deemed harmless to the proceedings.

The doctrine came out of a case in Missouri.  Criminal indictments in Missouri are required to say that the offense was "against the safety and decency of the State" (emphasis added).  There was an indictment that said "against the safety and decency of State" accidentally omitting the required "the".  The judge through out a 12 count rape indictment.

Obviously there are some technicalities that shouldn't result in dismissal, but in most cases technicalities that do are the result of agregious constitutional errors that substantially impair one side or another's either fundamental rights or the ability of their to be a fair trial.

In Civil Actions most technical violations occur during discovery.  One side is required to turn something over to the other side as part of the evidentiary discovery process.  That side fails to do so in the timely manner set forth by the Scheduling Order issued by the Court.  That will often result in dismissal of the matter (which can be brought back again).

In that case it was the VIOLATION OF THE TECHNICALITY that resulted in an unfair trial.  One side was not afforded the same discovery ability of the other, there was not a fair trial.

Additionally, the U.S. criminal system is DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to be unfair.  The defendant has NO burden to put on ANY evidence at all if he doesn't want to.  The State, Commonwealth, or Federal Government is the sole entity with any burden to prove anything.