Interview with John Dashler

Rusty at the Georgia Podcast Network has an interview with independent candidate for Governor John Dashler. You can listen to it here.

Mr. Dashler seems passionate, however, he strikes me as whiny.  Rusty asked him about ballot access in Georgia, which of course is very stringent.  Dashler launched into a rant about how the deck is stacked against him and mysterious men in suits from the Georgia Republican Party show up at barber shops to prevent people from supporting him.


  1. JaseLP says:

    I’m holding one of Dashler’s petitions in my hand right now.
    He has to get 50,000 valid signatures by mid July in order to qualify for the ballot. The legislature holds the key to getting that fixed, as well as the requirement for district candidates (which is currently 5% of the registered voters in a district).
    The restrictions placed on third parties and independents is horrible. It needs to be relaxed. Give the voters choice, other than different versions of the same thing.

  2. bowersville says:

    It may be time to allow for viewpoints on 3rd Party accessibility to ballots, unless the Dem’s And Repub’s are concerned that this should only be a two party system. As if we as individuals can’t decide for ourselves. Maybe the requirements for registration need to be upon the party rather than the individual. That’s the way the Dem’s and Repub’s do it, or don’t they? Do you believe the legislature will resolve it?

  3. Mojo says:

    Why can’t we just have proportional representation? Makes more sense and it would reflect the opinion of the electorate more closely than a winner take all system.

  4. betty says:

    Having two dominant political parties is actually a godsend that has led the United States to its current level of prosperity compared to countries with multiple parties. No one would argue we should just have one like Mexico or Japan, but do you want to have dozens like Italy or Israel?

    You can’t even argue that third-party candidates have had a positive impact in this country other than serving as a spoiler when incumbents become unpopular but their own parties insist in re-nominating them. Jesse Ventura was no one’s idea of a great governor.

    Sure, new ideas take much longer to creep their way onto the platforms of major-party candidates, but that also keeps us from latching onto fads and getting swept up in a rush of wrongheaded populism.

    We have three parties in Georgia with guaranteed ballot access. The Libertarians finally achieved that milestone, but has the state really benefited from their place on the ballot (other than Wyche Fowler’s defeat)? There should be an uphill climb for the John Dashlers of the world. The parties have an internal mechanism of sorts to screen out the flakes, and the state’s ballot-access law plays a valuable purpose in screening out the wacky independents. After all, Linda Schrenko didn’t get nominated for governor in 2002, and it wasn’t because she was known to be a crook. It was because party regulars who knew her wouldn’t give her any money.

  5. jacewalden says:


    Saying that we should keep the two party system because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.

    If you actually think its the “two party” system that has made America a successful country, then you are seriously mistaken. The two party system is waging a war against your individual rights. The system is completely broken. If we have should have learned anything in the past 4 years it should be that. It will take a third party (at least temporarily) to save our political system.

  6. jacewalden says:

    Third party candidates haven’t had a positive impact on the country because its too hard for enough third party candidates to get on the ballot in order to impact the country.

  7. Jeff Emanuel says:

    While a third party may seem like a breath of fresh air at times, the fact is that a third party just cannot win here. Besides the fact that the two major groups are not going to make it easier for an interloper in the electoral system, there just isn’t the broad-based enthusiasm for wholesale change that would be necessary to make a third party successful. Like it or not, the best way to change the status quo remains working within one of the parties, and trying to effect that change constructively, and within a framework of other ideals with which you agree.

    I’m not saying that third parties like Libertarian or Constitution are ridiculous or worthless; however, I’m just not that inclined to listen to much they have to say until they prove to me that they can at least break the 2% of the vote mark.

  8. bowersville says:

    The last time I read Mexico had more than one political party, besides Betty, what problem do you have with Israel? They seem to survive in a world of hate with their politcal system. Are you suggesting we, the US, cannot do the same?

  9. bowersville says:

    Please state your reason’s for believing a 3rd party is just an interloper, is it because the current two party’s insist they are avenues for reaching beyond the status quo for change? Or is because if there is a legitimate strong 3rd party, one or both of the dominant party’s will have to comprimise to the will of the people?

  10. jacewalden says:


    Part of the Reason they can’t break the 2% vote mark is because of ballot access laws. No matter how appealing a 3rd Party’s platform is, hardly anyone is going to follow through and vote for that party if they don’t see them on the ballot.

    I challenge someone to tell me something good that the two party system has accomplished in the past 4 years.

  11. JaseLP says:


    Jace is right. Due to the ballot access restrictions placed upon us here in Georgia, which has some of the most restrictive in the nation, our candidates spend 80% to 90% of their campaign funds just trying to get on the ballot.

    There is much money left for voter outreach and other ways to get their name out to their respective districts.

    I am seeing this on a first hand basis due to my involvement in the Libertarian Party.

  12. How about this: A winner takes all 56 seat senate (where the winner of the election in each district is the Senator) and a 224 seat (56 * 4) House elected proportionally with some sort of mechanism that makes sure that the parties have geographically diverse representation.

    I could see the Dems and Republicans winning about 85% of the seats in the House under this scenario with third parties picking up the rest. You would then allocate the seats geographically by county or groups of counties. Tons of Democrats would come from Fulton, DeKalb, etc but you could also have a Democrat from say Cherokee be in the legislature representing a group of counties, say Cherokee, Pickens, Dawson and Forsyth, who would not otherwise get a representative but who have more raw Democratic votes than many small counties who are represented by Democrats.

    You’d be assured that one party would have close to a majority (and maybe an outright one) but you’d have to govern by a true coalition. I think you’d also get a more moderate Senate, because the true ideologues would be attracted to a party based system based more on seniority — if they stuck around they’d never lose because they’d always be near the top of the list.

    The other alternative I’ve seen is I believe Germany. Their lower house has a mix of directly elected districts and party lists. Sounds like an interesting idea to me.

Comments are closed.