Recent complaints by some Pennsylvania Green Party members have alleged that the state laws governing the collection of nomination signatures are "restrictive and unfair" to third parties.

The argument is that, because the Green Party is small, they have "a limited number of people to circulate petitions."

The democratic system, however, has not failed these party members. All candidates must have a certain number of signatures in order to be placed on the ballot. These signatures are the most basic form of popular election; candidates that give voters what they want, regardless of party, will have an easier time garnering support.

The Green Party is proportionately smaller than the Republican and Democratic majority parties. If the district in which a Green Party member hopes to run is not one with a large concentration of sympathizers, he or she will not get nominated. That's not unfair or restrictive -- that's democracy.

If the state government decided to bend or change the law for the Green Party, it would affect all other small parties. This would put candidates on the ballot who do not necessarily represent the public interest.

The party members making these criticisms of the state government need to remember the electoral process is not a burden, it is a way for the people to voice their concerns to the government.

Yes, the nomination process is a popularity contest. But if a candidate's platform issues are not well-known or voter-friendly, he or she cannot expect the government to bend the laws.

Politics is a process of elimination. The people chose who they want to represent them -- to alter this principle will undermine the democratic process.

Instead of complaining, the Green Party should focus on recruiting new members, informing the public on more issues and garnering more support.