Unfair rules block Good Candidates

Mobile Press-Register

I'd like to comment on the article written by Sean Reilly, "State law creates roadblock to ballot" (Sept. 20).

It shows one of the ways the Republicans and Democrats try to weed out all opposing candidates for office. In the instance of Loretta Nall, acquiring 41,000 signatures is extremely hard.

And it is unfair for a third-party candidate to be subjected to different rules and standards than Republicans and Democrats. I wonder to myself why Democrats and Republicans are so "special" that they get different rules.

Evidently these rules were created by Republicans and Democrats, so they must have some reason to set harsher standards for third-party candidates wishing to run for office. I don't see the fairness and the democracy in such rules and regulations. They don't give the same rules to all candidates. This is basically the same thing as giving different rules for minority citizens.

My idea is to get rid of these big overgrown parties, and only allow candidates to run under their names rather than the names of their parties. Then we should apply the same rules to all candidates.

I'm going to give you an analogy for what I am trying to say: If Abraham Lincoln ran for office in Alabama as a third-party candidate, he'd have no possible way of winning. We are settling for the mediocre candidates rather than trying to give potentially good candidates a chance to win.

It's unfair, un-democratic, and un-American to restrict third-party candidates running for office.

RICHARD PETTA

Empire
--------------------

Thanks Mr. Petta for your efforts on my behalf.