Would we let GM and Ford set the rules for the creation of automobile companies seeking to compete against them? Then, why do we allow the Republicans and Democrats (most all legislators belong to one of the two parties) to set the rules for the creation of new political parties? If this were happening in the corporate world, we would call it an unfair business practice.
I understand the Elections Office has ruled the United Utah Party does not qualify to be on the ballot for electing Jason Chaffetz's successor because, by law, new parties must organize about 11 months before an election.
Such a burdensome rule. It clearly puts a dampener on creation of new parties. The supposed reasoning behind the law might be that it prevents a candidate from organizing a party just to get his name on the ballot.
I would ask, what is so wrong if he or she does do that?
Yes, I can see that if a candidate lost the nomination in convention, and he was free to form a new party and run on it, he might choose to do just that.
But, I'm afraid I just don't see the wrong of it all. Yes, I can see that there just might be some high-profile deflections from the two parties and perhaps a proliferation of new parties. That wouldn't be good for the Republicans and Democrats, of course, but I don't see how it would harm the electorate or the public.
Laws should serve the electorate and public, not the Republicans and Democrats. If monopolies are not always good in business, they are never good in politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment