Skip to main content

It's always kind of fun to see Delaware Demopublicans claiming that the State doesn't provide them special advantages

Which they do, fairly often.

Just browsing Chapter 33 of the Delaware Code, we find that the words "Democratic" and "Republican" have been declared completely off-limits for all other parties for all time.

No "Democratic Socialist Workers Party" permitted in Delaware.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic-Republican" party would have been illegal here, too.

The Code:
(a) The certificates of nomination shall designate a title for the party which the convention or committee represents, together with any simple figure or device by which its lists of candidates may be designated on the ballot. The figure or title or device selected and designated by the state conventions or committee of any party shall be used by that party throughout this State. Only 1 figure or device shall be used by a party at any election. The same title, figure or device shall not be used by more than 1 party, and the party first certifying a name, title, figure or device to the county departments of elections shall have prior right to use the same, and provided further that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party shall have exclusive use of such title and no other party shall use the word "Democratic" or "Republican" or any variation thereof in its title. Such figure or device may be the figure of a star, an eagle, a plow, or some such appropriate symbol, but the coat of arms or seal of this State or of the United States or the flag of the United States or of this State shall not be used as such figure or device.
Nah, no special privileges.  It's all about the superiority of the message, yah know?

Hypocrites.

Comments

tom said…
Don't forget that members of 3rd parties are excluded from appointment to the county Boards of Elections by § 202 (a) and § 203 (a) of Title 15
July 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM
kavips said…
I'm confused. I see some advantages. Let us say a Republican candidate wanted to run in Wilmington. He could file as a third party, and his party could be called

Democratic.

(the dot at the end is what makes it different.) Considering the mentality of many voters, that could make things difficult especially in the election of an at large seat.

And, considering the smegma attached to both party's names, I'm not sure it would impart the advantage one might wish, such as the Democratic Conservative Party or the Republican Socialists.

I will go out on the limb and say you are arguing a moot point here. :)

Better stick to the Johnsons....
July 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM
tom said…
That is a Straw Man.

Said Republican could already change his party affiliation to Democrat (without the dot), file for the primary and have a far better chance with less effort and expense.

Qualifying a third party for ballot access is a lot of hard work even when it's a legitimate Party as opposed to the obvious subterfuge you propose.
July 12, 2012 at 7:02 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more