4 ms·

I mean, apart from how they used (abused) the legal system to ensure their monopoly on voters continued, no there is no legally enforced monopoly...

chrisseaton 10y ago
I think 'legal monopoly' implies that there is some legal ruling which enforces the monopoly. You said yourself that what they are doing is an abuse. Just because it involves lawyers doesn't make it 'legal'. But ultimately the fact that there are independents on ballot papers proves clearly that there is no monopoly, legal or otherwise, by any definition at all.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  That may be clear to you, but to others the fact that the legal system was utilized to leverage the existing parties' power over smaller parties' ability to reach voters is what indicates a legal monopoly. Besides all that, I don't understand how you say there wasn't a legal ruling which enforced the monopoly, when I just presented several examples in which there were.
  - chrisseaton 10y ago
    You and I must simply have different understanding of the word monopoly and what it means to legally enforce one, so I guess we're not going to convince each other. Gary Johnson is standing in fifty states isn't he? He's not doing that illegally is he? So there is no monopoly. If there is then it's not being enforced, legally or illegally.
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      I didn't claim there was a monopoly this year, though, did I. In fact the GOP establishment would want Johnson to stand in 50 states as many of them oppose Trump and resent that he has taken over their party. Some would call that a straw man argument: establishing a fact I never disputed. On the other hand, there is evidence presented above that that occurred in previous elections (2004, 2000).
      - chrisseaton 10y ago
        > why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence That was the original question (from someone else). It sounds like we've agreed that the answer is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they don't'.
        tanderson92 10y ago
        I don't agree with that. What I agree with is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they haven't exercised the option that they have to do so'. As I said earlier, Johnson poses no threat to the GOP, and Stein isn't seen as a significant threat (and isn't).
        chrisseaton 10y ago
        I can sort of understand that you mean that you think they have the option to have a monopoly, if they felt they needed to exercise it.

chrisseaton 10y ago

I think 'legal monopoly' implies that there is some legal ruling which enforces the monopoly. You said yourself that what they are doing is an abuse. Just because it involves lawyers doesn't make it 'legal'. But ultimately the fact that there are independents on ballot papers proves clearly that there is no monopoly, legal or otherwise, by any definition at all.

tanderson92 10y ago
That may be clear to you, but to others the fact that the legal system was utilized to leverage the existing parties' power over smaller parties' ability to reach voters is what indicates a legal monopoly. Besides all that, I don't understand how you say there wasn't a legal ruling which enforced the monopoly, when I just presented several examples in which there were.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  You and I must simply have different understanding of the word monopoly and what it means to legally enforce one, so I guess we're not going to convince each other. Gary Johnson is standing in fifty states isn't he? He's not doing that illegally is he? So there is no monopoly. If there is then it's not being enforced, legally or illegally.
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    I didn't claim there was a monopoly this year, though, did I. In fact the GOP establishment would want Johnson to stand in 50 states as many of them oppose Trump and resent that he has taken over their party. Some would call that a straw man argument: establishing a fact I never disputed. On the other hand, there is evidence presented above that that occurred in previous elections (2004, 2000).
    - chrisseaton 10y ago
      > why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence That was the original question (from someone else). It sounds like we've agreed that the answer is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they don't'.
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        I don't agree with that. What I agree with is 'they shouldn't' and 'this year they haven't exercised the option that they have to do so'. As I said earlier, Johnson poses no threat to the GOP, and Stein isn't seen as a significant threat (and isn't).
        chrisseaton 10y ago
        I can sort of understand that you mean that you think they have the option to have a monopoly, if they felt they needed to exercise it.