I understand David Atias' disappointment that Alex White won't be on the ballot for Mayor of Rochester in November. To a degree, I share it. Competition is an important element in democracy.

So too, however, is the rule of law. Sean Hart's supposed offense was pointing out that Mr. White had failed to meet the legal requirements to have his name printed on the official ballot at taxpayer expense.

I don't know anyone who truly enjoys the petition process, but if Mr. White lacked the organizational wherewithal to collect a legally sufficient number of valid signatures, then he was not prepared to run a remotely serious campaign for Mayor of Rochester.

My main goals of my letter were:

1) To point out that the local Democratic Party went after EVERYONE who was not a machine-endorsed Democrat.

2) To continue to show local progressives that they are suffering from a political Stockholm Syndrome. They seem to feel that their captors truly care about them and their values.

It's interesting how many people in this town have personally told me how they will register and vote Green as soon as we start winning in Rochester. So I guess you can see the Catch-22 situation we have here.

Maybe we have to go another 30 years of a one-party monopoly before people will get fed up enough to break from their emotional bonds to a party that hasn't had a coherent vision for Rochester in years.

I completely understand where Dave Atias is coming from.

It says something that MCDC would even bother to challenge Mr. White's petitions. I doubt they were concerned about the petitions. They are concerned with only a couple of things--a show of force and having a clear playing field.

I'm not sure why having no competition is good for them. Maybe Mr. White crossed the line when he dared to challenge Bob Duffy. Every race needs to be challenged. Every candidate needs to have his or her views questioned. Without debate or a simple exchange of ideas, government cannot move forward.

I am beginning to believe more strongly that the only way to fix a broken two party system is with a very strong third party. So Dave I might be joining you soon :)

Mr. Schnurr hits the nail on the head in this exchange: it isn't a matter of competition it is a matter of law. The law is in place and it has to be followed. The Democratic Party didn't make the law, Sean Hart didn't make the law, Mayor Duffy didn't make the law. They have the decency to follow it and make sure others do the same. If laws are unfair, the only way we will know is by enforcing them, not by ignoring the ones we find convenient to ignore.

Actually, it is Mr. Atias who has hit the nail on the head.

When the local Democrats don't want someone running for office they make it known. It usually start off with a visit by none other than Joe Morelle. I personally know of several instances in which Mr. Morelle attempted to talk candidates out of running for office--especially if there was a primary involved.

When step one fails, MCDC moves on to step two--threatening to challenge petitions or actually challenging petitions. Sure everyone has the right to challenge petitions. And certainly there are laws that govern what proper petitions must be. However, when the threat to challenge petitions is made simply to intimidate, then I am certain the great folks at MCDC are just pissed off because their authority had been challenged.

I know of so many candidates who would never think about bringing a challenge to petitions for the simple fact that they are not afraid of competition and bringing all the issues to light.

Mr. Atias is absolutely correct when he says that MCDC, Sean Hart and others are in the business of stifling democracy. I've seen it happen.

Mr. Obrien states that "They have the decency to follow it and make sure others do the same." Does this statement imply that someone challenged Mr. Duffy's petitions when he ran and they were deemed to be perfectly in order? Or more likely, Mr. Obrien is simply stating something that cannot be proven.

It is quite possible if Mr. Duffy never had his petitions challenged that some of the signature were invalid and we simply will never know. But that is not to say Mr. Duffy did anything wrong. Petitioning is an interesting task and I do not believe even the most careful petitioner, following the rules, can guarantee the validity of all the signatures he or she collected.

If the threat to challenge is made shouldn't it be even more imperative you do them properly? Petitions are a quirky task where even well meaning folks can make mistakes. That is why you collect enough so that even if non-malicious errors are made, a person can remain on the ballot. Petitioning is a cornerstone of our democracy and should be respected, not treated as some inconvenient nuisance. Every campaign that is competent checks signatures of the opponent. If they are wel collected and are in order, there is no need to challenge. So it is likely Mayor Duffy's petitions have been looked at, even if not formally challenged. But the fact remains that petition fraud is a serious concern and a threat to democracy. The ends do not justify the means, and candidates who think otherwise are unfit for public office.

I never stated that the MCDC didn't have the right to challenge the petition of Alex White, or every other non-party endorsed candidate. I'm pointing out that it is telling of where our local political machines are coming from.

Changing the elections laws would be next to impossible as the foxes are in charge of the hen house here. There is a need to be able to challenge petitions. That's not being disputed. I can tell you - as a fact - that Alex White's signatures did not stand up because both he and his supporters were political novices. They are not any more. My hope is they are willing to stand up and be heard next time around. I know, the Green Party encourages this.